There is no doubt it's been a tough week for HRC.

[Jesus Malverde]

I'm curious if there are any thoughts about why our stenographer media, suddenly got the gumption to ask tough questions and editorialize against her. Whenever I see the media working in sync across multiple platforms and companies I get suspicious.

Was it just the IG report? Is this foreshadowing something to come? I find it strange the WAPO, NEW YORKER, LA Times, AP and many more are now supercriticle, where a week ago they were repeating her talking points and not challenging her weak dismissals. It's a blood in the water feeling but I'm really not sure of the catalyst. All these pundits and insiders turning on her in sync.

Is could be just a case of trying to make a horse race look more exciting for advertising dollars and eyeballs. I have been surprised all week by the corporate non right wing media.

[FreakinDJ]

1. It's going to get worse - they smell blood in the water

[Trust Buster]

4. Please, Sanders supporters have been smelling blood in the water for months and he still lost.

[Jesus Malverde]

7. These arnt sanders supporters

They are the establishment media.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You need to differentiale between media

who pushed along a narrative of nothing burger because they were told. It is very close in DC. and now they feel betrayed... and mere peons. In a non election year this would be bad. In an election year this can be fatal. In this election year it can be fatal to the country, Where are her negatives right now? And this is not Sanders. he has not touched this... low hanging fruit.

So I suggest you start paying attention. There is nothing more dangerous than an angry media with barrels of ink... and then you have pretty angry intel people. Boy are they pissed, becuase this is serious.

[Trust Buster]

43. I think the Democratic voters knew who they were voting for and why. They were not dictated

to by the media just because you did not receive the outcome you were looking for. Sanders did horribly with minorities in a Party that needs the minority vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Actually no, they didi not

media did not cover this, the way it has, until now.

There was, oopsie again, that word narrative, a change in the media narrative over the last week that was extremely obvious to anybody who studies or produces media. Mind you, I have covered a scandal, so this is very familiar to me.

And that realization will depress the votes of democrats. This is going, the way this is developing, to lead to a pretty apathetic voting public, who in many cases (primary voters) will be pissed once they realize the problem. She is not a good campaigner to begin with, and YOU CAN GO ARGUE that point with her, since these are her words, almost verbatim.

This is going to hurt her in major ways. Myself and I don't care who emerges from the democratic convention, will not be shocked at all if she does not come out as the nominee. She is lucky that we had a long weekend... you can bet your ass that calls are being made on background right now to try to convince media to change the narrative again, towards a far more friendly narrative;

Her negatives are what, at 14 right now? There is precious little more ground to go to. And these kinds of negatives are considered down right deadly. New to scandals? I'm not.

[Trust Buster]

46. I disagree. Even Sanders himself claimed in the first debate that he's tired hearing about

emails. Things haven't worked out the way Sanders and his supporters would have liked. Now they've changed their tune. The media had nothing to do with that. Votes and pledged delegates were the motivating factor in this new talking point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. This is *not* about Sanders

you are new to scandals, and how they develop.

This is developing the classic way a scandal does. By the way, Sanders could have used that. I am glad he did not, from a law perspective. From a political perspective, HRC is lucky, as in very lucky, he got Sanders. Any other politician would have pounded her. But he did not. WHY? Well, if this should go to trial, this would make it very difficult to find a jury. Speaking of juries, some of the things that have come out, tell me a GRAND JURY is likely empaneled.

The FBI and the other alphabet soups are not working within political calendar, this is a lesson you learn quickly when you cover a scandal. Simply put, they give two shits about the calendar, and yes, a legal case, as simple as a kid allegedly assaulting a cop is going to take 2 plus years from arrest to final day in court. You think this case is simpler? That is why they have more agents on it.

The way the narrative changed. I am almost willing to bet, as I posted bellow, that some folks already know more than they are reporting on background as well.

[Trust Buster]

49. I've read extensively about how the Republican machine tried to tie the Clinton's to scandal

for 25 years. I've also observed how Sanders supporters have continuously changed their talking points throughout the process. The bottom line is that more voters came out for Hillary than Sanders. Sanders flooded small caucus states with students expecting new entitlements. For that reason, this really isn't even as close as the difference in pledged delegates suggests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Alas Counselor that points to motive

She did this, becuase of that not all unjustified fear.

But this is an unforced error, as this is called in politics, or sports.

[Trust Buster]

51. You can talk as cute as you wish. But, that won't change the underlying fact that the voters

awarded more votes and pledged delegates to Hillary. You just can't escape that reality Nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Voters are not part of this *legal equation*

and you can keep pushing that as much as you want, This is not a nothing burger... and whether you like it or not, media narratives have changed, and her negatives continue to go down... and the scandal is part of the political calendar, ONLY as far as this is happening now. I wish quite honestly it peaked, becuase it looks like it will, a year ago.

You will learn... the problem is if those alphabets soups will have a mature case before or after the convention. Before, the party could still save itself, maybe. After... we are all fucked. And I will blame the party.

For the record, so will future historians...

[Trust Buster]

53. Thank you for your juris prudence, I just don't agree with your analysis. But, we'll see.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. It is not jurisprudence

it is called experience. I am a historian by training and I have covered local scandals. They all have a rhythm to them. This one accelerated.. and that is never a good sign. Yeah you notice when you keep timelines. For the record, guilty as charged. I am.

[reddread]

24. somebody will be looking for a pardon before it is all said and done

[Trust Buster]

2. She's our nominee. Some have feigned outrage at the IG report as they will with the FBI report.

The voters selected Hillary. They didn't believe that emails were a disqualifier. The people have spoken with their votes. The media is pretty irrelevant.

[Trust Buster]

9. I know that Sanders supporters are pushing this "voters don't matter" meme. That's because your

candidate has less votes. You've discounted southern Democrats, AA Democrats and Hispanic Democrats. But voters have the final say, your desperation aside.

[Trust Buster]

12. You sound both hysterical and desperate. Please don't embarrass yourself further.

[Trust Buster]

15. Calm down. You might burst a blood vessel. LOL

[XemaSab]

16. If I question whether Hillary jeopardized national security

that makes me a racist.

Uh huh.

Right.

[Trust Buster]

18. ????? I didn't even respond to a post of yours. I think you are mistaken.

[tazkcmo]

20. Nope.

It makes you sexist. If you question President Obama you're a racist.

A remember when it was healthy to question our politicians actions or motives and a person wasn't demonized for it. Clearly there are those that just smear like Colter and Limpballs for partisan reasons. But ANY questioning by anybody is now met with accusations of racism or sexism or what ever handy ism is out there.

Loyalty is one thing but blind support is dangerous and not good for any of us.

[Baobab]

35. She's not my nominee

She is not my choice.

I have not gotten to vote yet, either.

[840high]

61. Reading your post is like reading

a copy and paste. The lection is not here yet. Wait till the people DO speak.

[RazBerryBeret]

3. I agree...

even CNN has been slightly "un-biased" this week. it's weird.

[bigtree]

5. thing is, it's always been tougher for the Clintons

...for ANYONE in similar circumstances.

Those of us supporting her already understand this. That's what makes all of the concern so entertaining. She'll kick the sand right back in the faces of the dirt-throwers and prevail, as she always has. It's one of her more endearing qualities.

[Tarc]

8. Yea, we got the non-story about Emailgate plus her win in the Trump-Sanders "debate"

All in all, a very good week.

[tazkcmo]

21. Get it right!

A Nothing Burger! With cheese!

Apparently the FBI loves them some burgers and they've been dining at the New Burger Buffet for several months now. Stoopid RWers!













sarcasm

[Jesus Malverde]

22. Is this really your idea of a good week?

Hate to see what a bad one looks like.

[Jesus Malverde]

25. Here is how the guardian sums up the week.

Hillary Clinton's week from hell: can she shake off troubles to take on Trump?

For Hillary Clinton, the week that Donald Trump finally sealed the Republican presidential nomination should to have been a triumphant one.

Snip

The first was the sight of the former secretary of state falling behind her Republican opponent in an average of national opinion polls.

Snip

Then came a damning report by an independent inspector at the state department, who contradicted Clinton’s claims that she had been allowed to use a private email server for official business while serving as the nation’s chief diplomat.

Snip

The next surprise blow to Team Clinton this week was new opinion polling in California, where the penultimate and largest Democratic primary takes place on 7 June. It showed Sanders virtually neck and neck, forcing Clinton to schedule extra appearances to try to avoid the humiliating prospect of winning the national nomination race on the same day as she loses the largest state.

Snip

To make matters worse, Sanders responded to Clinton’s decision to pull out of a scheduled televised debate by taking up a subsequently rescinded offer to face Donald Trump instead. Though establishment Democrats fumed at the disloyalty of such a stunt, few doubted it would have drawn giant audiences.

Snip

Somewhat less attention was drawn to the final shock news of the week: a federal investigation into campaign contributions to a longtime Clinton confidant, Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia.

Snip

This speaks to a central part of her campaign – her experience – and calls into question her judgment. The question now is what is the next shoe to drop.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/28/hillary-clinton-campaign-emails-bernie-sanders-trump-polls

Not mentioned was the Kenneth Starr firing, which let the media rehash the Clinton impeachment. The editorial by Shawn King. The pentagon official documenting their ignoring operational security at paccom.

Here's Mika and the new media attitude.

https://m.

"Jaw dropping", "liar", "completely non credible", "new emails found, what's that about" - MSNBC

[pmorlan1]

28. Spin Cycle Out of Control

Pretty sad when people are spinning so hard and so often that they can't even admit that this was a bad week for their candidate. Anyone who tries to spin this bad week for Hillary as a good week should never be taken seriously again.

[Jesus Malverde]

29. I think the part of the week that was good for Hillary.

It comes out on the cusp of a long weekend.

[840high]

62. Thanks

[karynnj]

13. I think it was the clarity of the IG report that she evaded media oversight

Look at the list of media you name. It includes the most prestigious papers out there. They have been in the forefront of every battle the has dealt with the nedia's right to an oversight function.

This IS something close to their heart and the report is difficult to read without seeing that much of what happened happened to evade media and Congressional scrutiny. The more idealistic a journalist, the more this is an issue - beyond breaking administration guidelines or SD rules.

Other investigations will deal with classifications and national security. This deals with how email was handled and recommendat ions for how it should be handled. Ironically, when Clinton becomes President, she may find that the investigations and implentation of better practices that has been done per IG reccomendations will mean that she inherits a SD that functions far better on this and will be better able to deal with inquiries efficiently than the SD as it was when she left. Though this is good for openers and transparency, I doubt HRC will thank Kerry for his leadership on this.

[BillZBubb]

17. The media is craven. They fear going after either party establishment.

Absent a smoking gun, they will never strongly criticize a party establishment personality. The IG report is a smoking gun. Hillary can't whine about media bias and the Democratic party can't come to her defense without looking foolish. So, the media feels free to honestly talk about what the report said.

The problem for Hillary and her supporters is that the contents of the IG report give the media a large opening to pursue this further--and there is a lot to pursue.

The IG report opened the floodgates.

[unc70]

23. DEVASTATING became the trending word

A bunch of things have happened over the last couple of weeks. First, it appears that a lot of tidbits of the FBI investigations have started to be known. Much of that is through the FBI interviews of Clinton's staff. We only hear a few things (someone leaving an interview and later returning), but there is considerable chatter around DC.

The open letter to Obama from the intelligence community clearly stated the serious nature of these investigations. It probably previews some of the IC IG report that is on its way.

Comey's statements to the press reaffirmed that this is serious business, a criminal investigation. The SD-IG report systematically destroyed the Clinton talking points and denials and hinted at what might come.

Those three previously-unseen emails are particularly damning because of their content and because they were not turned over to State. You start getting closer to intent and possible obstruction.

The Blumenthal angle is one of the less murky security lapses. I would think he is in serious trouble.

These are only the parts we can see. There is a huge amount we don't know, much we will never know.

[Jesus Malverde]

26. Yeah I head that a lot...nt

[grasswire]

33. Ironically, even the freepers are better informed about these important things...

...than Democrats who rely on DU for their news -- primarily because of the banning of the many news sources who are on the de facto unapproved list here, and because of the jury system malfunction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. That is for the same reason DU'ers were better infomred

about Iraq and all that fun than Freepers.

[grasswire]

60. probably so nt

[Metric System]

27. Yeah, the media LOVES the Clintons. Ha! Where have you been for the last 20+ years?!?

[reddread]

31. living in their Paradise. they know who their friends are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

[JoePhilly]

67. Amazing isn't it.

[bobbobbins01]

30. They're on her side until she looks like she's going down.

Rats know when to flee a sinking ship.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Oh I got a theory... somethgn happened at the watering holes

on background

[Jesus Malverde]

37. Not sure I understand your comment?...nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. All reporters have sources

all reporters. The major networks have sources in the DOJ... the old joke was that they all went to the same bars and talked shop. Why I referenced the watering hole.

Well on background means that somebody told reporters that they got something, but none is ready to go on the record yet.

When you see it, as a regular reader, is when "unnamed sources" are cited. But the way they all changed on a flipping second, tells me this goes beyond the OIG... This has the classic feel of a slow moving scandal. We are reaching the end. The question will be before or after the convention?

[unc70]

39. Completely agree

DC elites are incestuous. All sorts of connections, friendships, marriages, extended families. Over time, bits and pieces of information leak out, start being combined. In the old days, we would see what exclusive would be in the Sunday papers revealing some piece of the advancing story. Will be curious how all this plays out.

[Alex4Martinez]

54. Force is a function of mass and acceleration.

In this case it may be a slow reveal but with great gravity, weight, mass.

Like a freighter or liner doing just 3 knots, when it hits the pier it just keeps going because there's a lot of mass there.

Perhaps something like this is about to be revealed, a slowly moving story of great consequence and weight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. That is certainly one way to describe it

[B Calm]

36. She campaigned being strong on national security, what a joke! This is not going away!

She is a flawed candidate.

[Demsrule86]

40. Not as tough as next week will be for Bernie

as the fact he is losing begins to sink in...a week from Tuesday...nine days...Bernie is an also ran.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. And in November you can say hi to President Trump

an unmitigated disaster, since the negatives for HRC are so low they are almost starting to go into actual, physical negative numbers. When historians write about the rise of the 4th Reich, and I am only partially exaggerating, Democrats will be blamed for it, HRC will be blamed for it.

[Demsrule86]

45. She will beat him if anyone can

Bernie would be a disaster in the General...he could never win Ohio, Virginia or Florida...other states too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Ok

remember you took Trump as a joke from word, I did not.

[CentralMass]

56. I think that this an attempt to get "this" out before the convention

"They" need to know how much damage the investigation is going to create. If Hillary does securr the nomination they didnt want it breaking on top of the convention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. From having seen scandals in the past

I think you are correct. The narrative changed on a freaking dime, and accelerated

[Peace Patriot]

63. When the Washington Psst (CIA) and the Atlantic (Pentagon, Joint Chiefs) weigh in...

...you gotta figure something significant is occurring behind the scenes. I happened to read an article by U.S. military brass (or ex-brass, as they do things) in The Atlantic back in 2006, and they were going on about how impossible it was to use nukes on Iran. As you may recall, Cheney-Rumsfeld's big plan that year was nuking Iran. It was all the talk. But then Rumsfeld resigned late in that year and all talk of nuking Iran suddenly went away.

When I saw the article about the OIG report in The Atlantic, all my tinfoil hat tentacles began vibrating and receiving messages. Hillary. Is. In. Big. Trouble.

And the Psst outrage tells us that the intelligence community's hair is on fire.

I know it's like reading entrails--but these publications do NOT print straightforward news and opinion. They only reveal the intestines of the animal they have sacrificed, and it's up to us to figure out what the omens are.

After reading up on Hillary's private server--here at DU and elsewhere after Paul Thompson got shunned--it seems to me--just a feeling, you understand--that our intelligence agencies and our generals DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS PERSON as commander-in-chief. Hillary's trustworthy ratings are in the toilet among us ordinary people. I suspect that that's where they are among these powers-that-be as well.

Someone here theorized (some weeks ago--can't recall who it was) that our spy agencies were monitoring her email server throughout its existence, and that this might mean that these dark players now have lots and lots of blackmail material with which to control President Hillary. I thought that was an interesting theory but probably too Byzantine--re a definite plan to let her get elected but then "handle" her. But the part about the spy agencies monitoring that server makes sense. According to a lot of techies, almost anybody could have been hacking that unprotected, wide open server. Why not our own spies as well?

What this may mean in the current, visible situation--the damning OIG report and the pending FBI report--I don't know and can't guess. What it says to me is that the chorus of disapproval in the Corrupt Media has been seconded by significant insider entrenched powers in the government.

We CAN guess, though, that there is probably a political shit-storm occurring behind the scenes--among all parties with an interest in the investigation, and all parties that are actors in the investigation, including many agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, HS, DoJ, OIG, Pentagon, etc.), John Kerry and others at State, Obama and the White House, many important political players (like Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Warren, et al) and probably big corporate players who have invested so heavily in Hillary, and expect TPP and other juicy rewards, and maybe some foreign entities--both in countries that could be implicated in illegal Hillary-brokered deals (the Saudis, for instance) and in our western and other allies who may be wondering what the hell is going on in our country.

Surely most of the potentially interested parties don't want Mr. Big Mouth Unpredictable as U.S. commander-in-chief! Could some of these interested parties and/or actors want Bernie Sanders as the safest president in these circumstances? He's certainly the one to demolish Trump, according to all polls on this matter since January. And he's not said he would dismantle the CIA or anything like that. (Harry Truman said that--did you know?) (Um, so did JFK, alas.) He really is NOT a radical at all. Just a nicer, more grandfatherly version of FDR. (Bernie wouldn't welcome anybody's hatred, even "organized money"'s.)

I don't know. Perhaps I'm spinning too far. But I do feel the rumble. And there are a whole lot of things that Clinton did--with regard to the server, in relation to the server and by use of the server--that would seem to be very offensive to major sectors of the government, in varied ways and for varied reasons. One I haven't mentioned is her use of Robert Kagan as an adviser. This is Mr. Chief Neo-Con of Bush-Cheney & Rumsfeld. The CIA wouldn't likely want to see that crowd back in the White House!

[Jesus Malverde]

64. I think your on to something.

The quickness of the shift, its as if they fired up, the mighty Wurlitzer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mighty_Wurlitzer_(media)

[Demsrule86]

65. Sorry

There have been just as many stories about how this is meaningless...and we have seen it all before...the IG report exonerates her according to Forbes...hardly a left-wing publication...she did nothing wrong in my opinion and was singled out because she is Hillary ...they have attacked her for years. I will be proud to vote and work for Hillary. Bernie would never win a general...he is a socialist and that would mean that in a couple of weeks the GOP would have ruined any chance...

[Peace Patriot]

68. "...they have attacked her for years." The FBI? The OIG? John Kerry...

...who referred the matter to the FBI? Barack Obama, who appointed all those people? (As to Obama, he quite possibly feels very betrayed for having appointed her SoS. She defied him secretly on Blumenthal. She created one big clusterfuck in Libya and, in another, Honduras, wrecked U.S. diplomacy in Latin America for several years, until Obama and Kerry did the opening to Cuba, etc. She defied all protocol and all common sense with the private email server, which now threatens his legacy with its only scandal.)

The Washington Psst "have attacked her for years"? The Atlantic? MSNBC?

"Bernie would never win a general..."? It's Hillary who is in trouble, with falling polls against Trump. She's now losing to him. And it's Bernie who has been beating Trump, and beating him badly, in every poll since January.

His very high trustworthy and favorability numbers will overcome any negatives on "democratic socialism," and there are many indications that the American people couldn't give a crap about labels like "socialism" any more. They want HELP...from THEIR government! Bernie has easily been able to show that he's no more radical than Dwight Eisenhower (90% taxes on the rich; free public college tuition; said that anybody who opposed the New Deal "doesn't belong in American politics.&quot

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Hmm Reid's comment the other day

Was critical of her and Pelosi has yet to endorse. I said above, something happened on background

[KoKo]

69. .....! Soon more...

Then there is the Clinton Foundation (CGI) and its tentacles into DOS. The possible "Pay to Play." The reporting that has already been done on that last fall and earlier (Declan Kelly) before she ran but didn't get much follow up in MSM. That's all sitting out there.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/teneo-final-221807

Interesting that the surprise of McAuliff's problems were announced last week, also.