DOJ Documents Dump On Clinton Lynch Meeting Prove Media Collusion; FBI Lied

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Trump won 46% of the vote overall.

He (barely) won with a razor thin margin (less than 2%) in four states, MI, PA, WI, FL.

That razor thin margin is what gave him the Presidency in the Electoral College.

His Electoral vote totals are lower than any President's of the modern era except GW Bush.

These ... are simply facts.

He did not have anything approaching a "mandate" and he did not have a "great victory."

The suggestion that 55% of Americans don't matter because they "live on the coasts" is simply absurd and, not to put too fine an edge on it, anti-American.

Based on what we know now, Trump won the election fair and square. But for god's sake, any of you that still understand what honesty is ... don't pretend he won big or speaks for "all Americans."

Swing State Margins -
Washington Post

2016 Presidential Election Results USAelectionatlas.org

Clinton received almost 4 times as many votes than Trump from counties that reported more registered voters than voting-age citizens in California. Take that away and Cali would be red.

But at least you admit he won fair and square.

a reply to: burntheships>>>. And she was busted using an alias( Elizabeth Carlisle) in emails to the DOJ. Why the secrecy? Also, James Alefantis of Pizzagte/pedogate infamy has been revealed to be a Rothschild. That swamp needs to be more than drained, it needs to salted and then burned.

Only Hillary supporters look the other way on these message boards. They are the purest form of poltical shill. Just read their posts. Even Bernie supporters who have no love for Trump are all over this email story and Seth Rich.

Why would they need talking points for a mundane visit to talk about grandkids? Why would their sycophantic media drones ask for ways to spin the story?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

I don't know about that, if there is a McCain connection.

Sessions did not need to recuse himself, I think that
was a mistake. However, he could unrecuse himself.

And he should.

Lynch needs to be fully investigated.

Oh.. I didn't know he could UN-recuse himself! I don't think President Trump knows this either, or it would have been in one of his "Sessions has let me down!" Tweets.

But, it may not matter, because AG Sessions has shown no appetite for going after former officials. I think they all used to drink and go to the swamp's steam-rooms together.

As far as I know it's just a verbal recusal and theres no official documentation or mandate. He can just come out tomorrow and say due to the circumstances, I revoke my recusal. Not positive, bit I think it's possible.

a reply to: burntheships

Corrupt Beyond all belief

These globalists have already committed treason, civil was across the western world against the globalists and liberals is the only solution

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Greven
Your entitled to your opinion, however these emails
must be viewed in light of the entire scandal, starting
with the fact that Hillary Clinton was under a criminal
FBI investigation when Lynch and Bill Clinton met
clandestinely on her plane.

Also there are many facets to this FOIA, starting with
the first denial for the FBI that there were no records.

Hey look another non-response to my refutation of your source.

What opinions? The emails say one thing and the article twists them to claim they say something else.

LITERALLY FAKE NEWS and you are swallowing it up - the sheer ineptitude and willful blindless being displayed to the cheers of onlookers is frightening. What has happened to ATS???

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?

Obviously you didn't read the NYT email or my damn quotation of it; a White House correspondent was pressed into service by being put on a story that wasn't about the White House - note how WaPo is using National Security correspondents? That's where the story is under. See what the NYT reporter is asking? Does that sound like he's avoiding hard questions to you?

WHERE in the exchange does it say ONLY FOX NEWS is going to cover it? You have now made a claim, prove it NOW, quote and link the EMAIL that SAYS JUST THIS or what you THINK says that.

Also, here's the 'avoiding the story' WaPo:
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
Th e Lynch/Clinton tarmac tête-à-tête sends the message
Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe
What was Bill Clinton trying to accomplish in his tarmac meeting?
Attorney general declines to provide any details on Clinton email investigation
This is what Loretta Lynch is thinking now
FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe
Justice Department closes Clinton email probe without charges
FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
House Republicans grill FBI director Comey on Clinton emails
W ho had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These are just articles and opinion pieces on WaPo mentioning it within the week following this email exchange - totally avoiding the story uh-huh.

Thank for all those WAPO articles did you find any of them from msm TV news, you know, CNN or the big three Lib channels or even the MS L S D 's as we like to call them?

The OP and Xcathdra claim that WaPo and others were trying to bury the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting.

The plethora of stories from WaPo following that rather suggests otherwise, don't you think?

Honestly I have no idea what you mean as it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand and the reason for why I posted those links. This is not particularly difficult to discern if you read my post.

I recall the OP said ALL but FOX of the MSM buried it and WAPO isn't even MSM that the regular man reads. Deflection fail. MSM buried the story, period.

The OP literally quotes an email exchange by a WaPo reporter as evidence that the MSM is colluding to bury the story

What is this insanity that has afflicted members in this thread??? Why do you believe the out-of-context quotes from Hannity over the the actual emails those quotes come from?!?!

I ask again: QUOTE THE EMAIL THAT SAYS ONLY FOX IS COVERING IT. This is the second time I've asked for proof FROM THE ACTUAL EMAILS.

Man up.

originally posted by: mkultra11
Only Hillary supporters look the other way on these message boards. They are the purest form of poltical shill. Just read their posts. Even Bernie supporters who have no love for Trump are all over this email story and Seth Rich.

Why would they need talking points for a mundane visit to talk about grandkids? Why would their sycophantic media drones ask for ways to spin the story?

I don't give two #s about the Clintons since the Murrah Building bombing (lifelong OKC-area resident) - the media clearly didn't 'collude' in the emails that the article claims shows them colluding.

I mean for #'s sake, the 'pressed into service' quote is being twisted to mean they were reluctant to cover a story, when in reality the reporter is normally a WH correspondent and the story he was tasked with was outside that purview. He asks some seriously tough questions of the Office of Public Affairs.

But screw what REALLY happened in those emails - just draw conclusions from three words whose meaning is stretched bizarrely by a Hannity article and take it at face value I guess. This is ridiculous.

Maybe because they know that even an innocent conversation would be completely blown out of proportion?


Hmmmm.

That couldn't be it.....


Lol

a reply to: mkultra11

I'm pretty sure I'm the one and only Hillary supporter on this site and you don't know a blasted thing about me. But do keep generalizing as it keeps your life simple.

And Seth rich.... story for the gullible who want so badly to believe it.

Sad! Hehe

Speaking of dumps ,it seems that there are some documents with metadata to look at ... not sure what parts can be used because they are heavily redacted but if they are the real deal they show that a Grand Jury was involved .

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Prove the claim.

Clinton received almost 4 times as many votes than Trump from counties that reported more registered voters than voting-age citizens in California. Take that away and Cali would be red.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454


Swing State Margins -
Washington Post

2016 Presidential Election Results USAelectionatlas.org

And how many of the smaller blue areas were dead people voting,
people registered twice, illegal immigrants and fraud?

According to reports, Clinton did not get nearly as many
votes as they claim.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nearly a dozen Calif. counties had more registered voters than eligible voters in 2016 election

Nearly one dozen California counties had more registered voters on their voter rolls than people eligible to vote living in their county, a new Judicial Watch letter has revealed.

The conservative watchdog group sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on August 1 on behalf of the Election Integrity Project of California. The letter threatened to sue the Golden State if they refuse to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, which mandates voting precincts maintain the integrity of their voter rolls by taking steps to maintain their accuracy.

Click link for full article...


Judic ial Watch Warns California to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced it sent a notice-of-violation letter to the state of California and 11 of its counties threatening to sue in federal court if it does not clean its voter registration lists as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Both the NVRA and the federal Help America Vote Act require states to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voting rolls. The August 1 letter was sent on behalf of several Judicial Watch California supporters and the Election Integrity Project California, Inc.

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote.

click link for full article...

Ok, next?

Not sure if the full 413 pages of emails has been posted yet.. so..

media.aclj.org...

Let's not forget that Jim Comey testified that no records existed about this meeting.

a reply to: burntheships

I don't get it.

Can you be specific..With quoted text in context and what you think it means?

And what is "Shocking" or revelatory?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Wardaddy454


Swing State Margins -
Washington Post

2016 Presidential Election Results USAelectionatlas.org

Interesting...

If people were evenly distributed dirt ......that map might tell us something..

That map doesn't account for population density..or "people"..just land.

People vote...Dirt does not.

Here is the map adjusted for Voting Population

a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually it does. It is a break down county by county and who carried that county. We dont use a national popular vote. We have 51 individual popular votes (50 states and DC). Clinton won the popular vote in all the states she carried and Trump won the popular vote in all the states he carried.

Voters from California and New York dont get to nullify the votes from people in other states. The electoral college was put in place specifically to prevent populace states from running over everyone else.

In the end Trump won more states and by extension, more electoral votes = He won and Clinton lost = get over it.

a reply to: soberbacchus
We already know all about that.
City centres vs suburbs and rural.
Would you like some information on how the US elections work?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually it does. It is a break down county by county and who carried that county. We dont use a national popular vote. We have 51 individual popular votes (50 states and DC). Clinton won the popular vote in all the states she carried and Trump won the popular vote in all the states he carried.

Voters from California and New York dont get to nullify the votes from people in other states. The electoral college was put in place specifically to prevent populace states from running over everyone else.

In the end Trump won more states and by extension, more electoral votes = He won and Clinton lost = get over it.

Slight correction - it's actually 53 popular votes. 48 states with one popular vote, Maine and Nebraska with two + DC.
Trump won the most popular votes with ease. I think it was something like 32 vs 21.