Is Hillary Clinton's push for early voting because she knew that her classified information breaches were far more widespread than previously disclosed and she wanted those votes in before it all came out? THIS is UNCORROBORATED, unproven, but hey, does that matter anymore?
Two things contributed to this off-Obamacare post. First the stuttering, virtually incoherent press conference of 10/31/2016 by Press Secretary Josh Earnest and second, Chris Cuomo's, new depths of non-news reporting on "New Day," that really end up being a vocabulary challenge: "Do we know the difference between corroborated and uncorroborated?"
Yesterday, I was actually stunned by the stuttering inability and incompetence of Josh Earnest in delivering answers to questions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/31/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-10312016. The press conference questions obviously focused on the newest hundreds of thousands of emails that have emerged connected to Hilary Clinton's classified material breaches.
One question asked was loaded against FBI Director Comey citing that "Eric Holder says that was the wrong decision." Really? Eric Holder? Remember him, the former Attorney General who resigned in the wake of a judge's decision that the government couldn't WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS relating to the Fast and Furious Scandal and who was held in CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS for his actions, http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/politics/eric-holder-resignation/, that's the guy who's giving advice on the right thing to do?
Earnest responds: "I have made clear that the White House is going to be scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of political interference in prosecutorial or investigative decisions," yet a few sentences later, Earnest incorporated the Clinton campaign's objections to Comey's nontraditional behavior which she lauded previously when AG Lynch passed her authority to the FBI Director and suddenly, in a very partisan way said, "…the President believes that it's important for those norms and traditions and guidelines to be followed."
Then there was a question about Donna Brazile's disgraceful cheating to help Hillary Clinton by leaking debate questions: "…should Donna Brazile, in your opinion, if this turns out to be true, step down from her position at the DNC?" To which the Press Secretary responded: "No. The President believes that she’s done a fine job…"
The reporter pressed on: "If it turns out that she did tip the scales or put her hand on the scale for Secretary Clinton, and didn’t handle it evenly as a member of the leadership of the DNC, that’s okay with you?"
Earnest responded: "Well, I don’t think she was a leader of the -- on the DNC leadership at the time of the debates. I think during the -- my understanding is -- and you should check with the DNC on this -- but that during the primary, she was not affiliated with the DNC." *[Brazile was serving as a Vice Chair of the DNC.]
What? OK, so the President still supports the cheater and fired reporter Donna Brazile and he's still stumping for Hillary Clinton in spite of EVIDENCE, CORROBORATION of foul play but instead rather drift into a discussion of temperament giving opinions, uncorroborated assessments designed to make people fear Donald Trump--Got you Mr. Earnest.
Then onto, "New Day." I was watching CNN's Chris Cuomo today, 11/1/2016, promise a story about the UNCORROBORATED CLAIMS OF TRUMP'S CONNECTION TO RUSSIA this morning almost laughing until I realized it was being covered like a "news" story. UNCORROBORATED meaning NO EVIDENCE, NO CONFIRMATION to support a statement, why cover it? Undoubtedly some will go out discussing Trump's ties to Russia displaying the stunning silliness of quoting such a story.
Even THE NEW YORK TIMES, which usually chooses to mislead by cherry-picking or ignoring facts rather than outright misstating them had to admit, "Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government," http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html, contradicting Hillary Clinton's creation of the "RUSSIAN CONNECTION" story. But still, some people, normally intelligent-seeming people discuss the mythical, uncorroborated smear attempt as fact.
And then there's the FBI investigation into Clinton's corrupt, sloppy and irresponsible handling of classified information which has Hillary Clinton saying, "It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information right before an election…it's deeply troubling because voters deserve to get full and complete facts," indicating Comey's political motivations which President Obama has denied as stated in the White House Press Briefing of 10/31/2016, "the President doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election," https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/31/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-10312016.
Then there was the debate cheating with DNC lapdog Donna Brazile providing Hillary Clinton with debate questions ahead of time CORROBORATED, with evidence overwhelming enough that even CNN had to act with the dismissal of their "reporter," http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-fired-cnn-contributor/.
Then there were Hillary's CORROBORATED lies, after all, everyone heard her say there was NOTHING CLASSIFIED, which is false, "I never sent or received any material marked classified," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pLR9P0u4Ms.
So why does corroboration matter? Because it prevents opinion from being considered fact and therefore prevents you from being used as a tool to spread agendized rantings of dishonest people. I'm pretty hostile towards it myself having voted for Obama based on his outright lies about his plans for health insurance in the US.
I mean, after all, if we like juicy stories, maybe we should look at recent events surrounding voter fraud:
Hey, this is UNCORROBORATED too: If you need a "isn't it strange" story, I find the Democrats' push for early voting incredibly "odd" in lieu of the latest corruption reveal, indicating they want to get those votes in before the truth emerges.
After all, Reuters reported that the Thursday October 27th campaign trip to NC by Clinton, would suddenly include Michelle Obama, "Fallon called Obama a 'rock star' and said her 'team keeps surprising us with extra' availability to appear on the trail," http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/michelle-obama-hillary-clinton-230209#ixzz4OlRj7iTK within HOURS of the FBI's reveal of new Clinton corruption, on Friday, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/28/read-the-letter-comey-sent-to-fbi-employees-explaining-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.ee91dac7ff89, with material discovered on former Senator Anthony Weiner's devices of hundreds of thousands of new emails discovered in connection with his inappropriate and possible criminal interaction with a North Carolina underage teen.
And remember, and if you don't you can look them up, there is evidence, video evidence of some of Clinton campaign workers describing how easy voter fraud is and engaging in illegal behavior, (for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI2SbepmNT0), which lends reasonableness to the idea that the push in NC, including Michelle Obama's surprise availability, hours before the Comey bombshell might have been something besides a friendly little visit.
So, guessing, predicting, implying, do it all but don't let others' guesses, predictions, implications and outright lies influence you to become a liar too, it just makes you seem stupid.
