Did I miss something? What was so damaging to Hillary in those Wikileaks-hacked emails?

At worst, they showed that DNC staff preferred Hillary over Bernie, not surprising considering she was a fixture in the Democratic Party for decades and he wasn't even a Democrat until primary season. The whole idea was to make it SEEM like something terrible was going on.

It doesn't matter what they say as much as how they say it. FuxNews makes "nothing" sound like "something" to their idiot cult followers.

Simply repeating Trump campaign sound bites.

Ethics are absent in many instances. Anything for a buck, I guess.

So no one was matching them while they stole the election.

The incriminating emails never really existed.

It was almost like a conspiracy.

............... .................

The Republicans’ favorite tactic against Bill and Hillary Clinton, oh, since about 1991, has been to throw turdball after turdball at them so that some flecks might stick to them and they can rail at the filth.

Failing to do so, the turdballs slough off and pile up at their feet, giving off a great fogbank of steam.

Republicans the point with alarm at the rising clouds and invoke “Y’know what they say: where there’s smoke...”.

HRC won the popular vote by almost 4 million votes. drumpf the psychopath pathological liar was elected president. Go figure.

The DNC stuffed the ballot for Hillary, cheating Bernie of the nomination.

Oh wait, that's what the JPR idiots claimed.

Nothing. There was nothing in there. There was a good risotto recipe in there, though.

It allowed them to blur the lines between "email server" and "email hack".

It didn't fucking matter to the fucking deplorables. All they cared about was keeping the words "Hillary" and "Email" in the news.

Hell, they could have been cooking recipes...oh wait...some of them were.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WERE A BUNCH OF DUers, BERNIE-BROS AND RUSSIAN BOTS WHO HELPED THE DEPLORABLES DO THEIR FUCKING HATCHET JOB

Capital crime.

It worked well. Andrea Mitchell and many other were all about “but her emails” with no journalistic follow up. Today we are now praising a number of the same “journalists” as they work to bring us back into their profit fold. It’s disgusting.

was absolutely nothing in the hacked emails. There is never anything in the "scandals" that have been manufactured over Hillary. But the republican and Russian messaging was blanketing, shrill and relentless. We had nothing to match it to set the record straight.

A good PR firm, plus talking points for every Democrat speaking in any forum, would have gone a long way to prevent those lies from spreading.

the most "scandalous" bit I got from them was that the DNC preferred Hillary over Bernie. And why wouldn't they?

Anyway, yesterday I was watching a tape of Roger Stone on Infowars, declaring on the day after he dined with Julian Assange that devastating information about the Clinton Foundation was about to be revealed. So it seems to me that either Assange lied about the contents of the emails when he pitched them to Stone, or that neither had actually reviewed any of them.

And now Stone is in danger of going to prison. Serves him right.

But yes, I will have a moment of glee when Stone gets sentenced.

many times I had to turn off Thom H, Steph Miller and Alan Colmes (RIP) because of the nonstop blathering Trump clips they were playing. And by quoting/ reacting against/criticizing what the propagandists say, arent we basically doing their work for them, helping spread their message?

I dont know the answer, how do we turn that around, squelch the propaganda, and re-frame the debate? I just hope someone smarter than me is working on it in time for next election. Where is Don Draper when you need him - "If you dont like what they're saying about you, change the conversation."

The details don't matter. It was just THE EMAILS!1!1!!

It goes back to Benghazi. It revved up again with the emails "found" Weiner's laptop (sorry if that caused an inappropriate image flash).

But but but . . . . . her EMAILS!

See how that works?