Tuesday, September 17, 2019

WaPo: FBI's Kavanaugh Inquiry Was a Sham

Washington Post Editorial Board: In September 2019 as the battle over the confirmation of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court raged, then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) struck a deal. Flake would delay confirmingKavanaugh until the FBI completed an investigation into credible allegations of sexual misconduct -- but the investigation couldn't be open-ended or last ages. ... Now comes additional evidence that the investigation was, in fact, far from thorough and more of a sham than it seemed at the time. Reasonable investigative steps were not pursued. The FBI interviewed practically no one regarding one of the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, in which one of his Yale classmates, Deborah Ramirez, said Mr. Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her.

More

Comments

Of course it was. When those that had much to gain manipulates the investigation and subsequently the investigators it can't be seen in ANY light as being legit.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 08:20 AM

"During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms.Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been the talk of campus.' Our reporting suggests that it was," the reporters wrote. They found that federal agents interviewed none of the two dozen people who Ms. Ramirez said could bolster her story and ignored an allegation of a second episode of drunken misbehavior.

This investigative shoddiness was apparently the fault not of the FBI but of Republicans looking for the cover.... At first, they limited the FBI to questioning only four people about two separate allegations. Agents eventually got an expansion of the number of people they could contact " they interviewed 10 " but not an extension of their deadline: a mere week.... Under these pressures and limitations, the FBI interviewed few and turned in its report early.

The Senate was faced with the challenge of evaluating Mr. Kavanaugh's credibility when he insisted the allegations against him were totally baseless and that he did not ever get so drunk he blacked out. Corroborating witnesses for Ms. Ramirez, along with any accounts of Mr. Kavanaugh's drinking they had to share, would have spoken directly to this question. Instead, the Senate got a woefully incomplete report. Republicans got their cover.

Imagine watching a Law and Order episode where the investigators speak to a person reporting an alleged act that occurred a long time ago, but just became relevant in the present due to outside circumstances far beyond the accuser's control. The accuser's lawyers gives the investigators a list of 25 people thought to have corroborating evidence supporting the accuser's accusation. Not to mention there are other people making similar accusations about the same person.

Next, the investigators question the person accused of the in-question acts. Now imagine that the accused vehemently denies any and all allegations of impropriety while simultaneously attacking the motives of the accuser. The accused claims that HE is the real victim here and any further investigation amounts to his own persecution, and how dare anyone go beyond this point.

At that juncture have you ever seen the investigators fold up their notepads and say "That's it, we're done"? Of course not. The key phrase is stated above. There is nothing unreasonable about following up leads when there is conflicting evidence and muddled recollections.

I've yet to understand how asking questions that others are compelled to answer truthfully under penalty of law can be viewed as persecuting anyone if that person is innocent? There is no presumption that witnesses will lie regardless. Who thinks that way? A fuller picture will eventually emerge because the people who were involved will most likely add vital details when put together lead to better understanding of what did or didn't happen. It's simply a matter of time, but it should have happened last year.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-17 08:35 AM

Just another piece of evidence in a long long list that righties are sad excuses for human beings who care only for forcing their schitt world view on everybody else.

All while claiming to be "moral" and "patriotic".

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 08:45 AM

To my eyes, that original "investigation" had one purpose, to give Senators who wanted to vote for the appointment all along, such as Sen Collins, enough cover to vote for appointment.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The restrictions and limitations placed upon the investigation by the White House made that point loud and clear.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 09:59 AM

Turns out that Kavanaugh is a liar? No one could have predicted that (except the people who were saying it ALL ALONG).

Actually, everyone knows he is a liar. It was obvious from his testimony and his history (he eagerly lied about things that he knew it would be difficult to "prove" he was lying about). The "Beach Week Ralph Club" was because he had a weak stomach? Give me a break.

But, for Republicans, that (lying) is a preferred trait in their politicians and representatives. Electing and appointing liars is just another way that they can "own the libs".

#5 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-17 10:14 AM

What's odd to me is that there are any number of (relatively) young, white, conservative male justuces who will act as Republican operatives on the Supreme Court, who weren't bad people in college. Gorsuch is one example.

Why did it have to be Kavanaugh?

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:16 AM

WaPo is a sham newspaper.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 10:23 AM

I see the usual suspects typing alot of words with no foundation.

Asking rhetorical questions with looking at reality ...

They are hacks, trout, and pawns in this political era.

It was a sham when it started and its still a sham today ...

If it was true the NYT would be editing and publishing all the facts, instead of cutting Exculpatory Information About Kavanaugh, it just shows you how weak of a case it is.

But hang on next will be some new faux outrage

Squirrel!

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-17 10:28 AM

What's odd to me is that there are any number of (relatively) young, white, conservative male justuces who will act as Republican operatives on the Supreme Court, who weren't bad people in college. Gorsuch is one example.

Gorsuch didn't change the ideological composition of the court, Joe (he was filibustered as well - it was the first time a justice was successfully filibustered - Abe Fortas was a bipartisan filibuster).

Had Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett instead of Kavanaugh the attacks would have been even more vicious.

I'm operating under the assumption that in 2023 Ginsburg will retire. If Trump still has the WH and the GOP still has the Senate he could nominate the Mother Theresa of available justices and it will likely result in multiple assassination attempts.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:28 AM

The inquiry was a "sham" because the allegations were astronomical shams.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:30 AM

NOW this GEM

NYT's @rpogrebin suggests unnamed woman in her Kavanaugh excerpt may have been too drunk to remember Kavanaugh's penis being pushed into her hand.

Can we get any more ridiculous?

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-17 10:30 AM

Gorsuch didn't change the ideological composition of the court

I see your point, but again there's nothing on Gorsuch that could be turned into the mountain of negative press facing Kavanaugh. There are other squeaky clean guys like Gorsuch out there who will do Reublicans' bidding. Which, again, leads me to ask - why Kavanaugh?

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:34 AM

The inquiry was a "sham" because the allegations were astronomical shams.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:30 AM | Reply | Fl

Interviewing all the witnesses might have proved that one way or the other.

Trump interfered with this FBI investigation, for his benefit, the only reason he does anything.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 10:35 AM

If Trump still has the WH and the GOP still has the Senate he could nominate the Mother Theresa of available justices

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, but he won't, will he?

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 10:37 AM

It was obvious from his testimony and his history (he eagerly lied about things that he knew it would be difficult to "prove" he was lying about). The "Beach Week Ralph Club" was because he had a weak stomach? Give me a break.
But, for Republicans, that (lying) is a preferred trait in their politicians and representatives. Electing and appointing liars is just another way that they can "own the libs".
#5 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-17 10:14 AM

That's a whole lot of claims that Kav lied without any actual evidence that he...you know...lied.

It is very telling that their very first 'lie' is, in fact, a verifiable reality.
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Why would you even bother to link to an article whose premise fails in the very first paragraph?

As for the next 'lie' boofing? An actual student from a decade later recalls that boofing at that very same school was used to refer to farting.

10 years later at Georgetown Prep, students talked about boofing. One meaning was definitely farting.
" LA Times Writer Del Quentin Wilber (@DelWilber) September 27, 2018
twitter.com

Is there any timeline on getting some actual evidence that he lied? It's been nearly a year now.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 11:29 AM

I do like that the current iteration of the story, that someone sexually assaulted Kavanaugh and a too-drunk-to-recall woman, and even though Kavanaugh is a victim of sexual assault, he should be impeached because of it.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 11:33 AM

#16 He shouldn't have worn that sexy letterman jacket.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 11:50 AM

"The inquiry was a "sham" because..."

...they didn't even interview the named witness under oath.

And if there were more they had to ignore....

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-17 11:53 AM

..they didn't even interview the named witness under oath

The witness submitted a written statement that carried the weight of perjury if false.

There was no witnesses because everyone who was named didn't recall the event ever happening.

Heck, Ford's team exerted pressure - threatening slander of Keyser - if she wouldn't play ball and she admirably held tough. And this is a woman who opposed Kav's nomination. That is an absolutely amazing piece of this story. She even went further to say that she was NEVER at a party where both Ford and Kav were present - never at a party when Kav was present without Ford being present.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 11:59 AM

WaPo is a sham newspaper.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian

Got nothing to add, eh sham poster?

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 12:21 PM

The inquiry was a "sham" because the allegations were astronomical shams.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

Yawn.

You decided before all information was out what the conclusion was.

Hence you're inability to call that entire confirmation process what it was-a joke and a mockery of our institutions.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 12:22 PM

WaPo is a sham newspaper.

POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-17 10:23 AM | REPLY

Why you rotten bastard. You're the same shmuck that condemns Danni and I for what you are doing now. No wonder you fit in so well with the right wingers. Born from the same cloth.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 12:28 PM

#16 He shouldn't have worn that sexy letterman jacket. - #17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 11:50 AM
I can only imagine that he wasn't wearing anything. Yale (among a few other colleges) have a long history of naked parties. Nude and platonic activity. While I personally wouldn't have engaged in such antics, I don't hold these normal Yale activities against him.
yaledailynews.com
www.bing.com

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:29 PM

You decided before all information was out what the conclusion was.
Hence you're inability to call that entire confirmation process what it was-a joke and a mockery of our institutions.

#21 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-09-17 12:22 PM | FLAG:

Yep he sure did repeatedly.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 12:31 PM

#23

Patrick Bateman: He was into that whole Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: Yale thing?
Bateman: Yeah, Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: What whole Yale thing?
Bateman: Well, he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 12:35 PM

Hence you're inability to call that entire confirmation process what it was-a joke and a mockery of our institutions.

#21 | POSTED BY JPW

On this we actually agree. What the Democrats did was absolutely deplorable and made a mockery of the process.

WaPo is a sham newspaper.
POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-17 10:23 AM | REPLY
Why you rotten bastard. You're the same shmuck that condemns Danni and I for what you are doing now. No wonder you fit in so well with the right wingers. Born from the same cloth.

#22 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Laura lambasting someone for slaughtering the source???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That is too funny!

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:35 PM

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-17 11:59 AM | FLAG: Now, now, we must not confuse the libbies with facts as they consider them ugly distasteful things that hinder their agenda which could trigger them into running to their safe spaces.

#27 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-17 12:35 PM

If memory serves, according to the Senate report the FBI interviewed 4 of the people named by Ramirez and came up with nothing.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:36 PM

Laura lambasting someone for slaughtering the source???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That is too funny!

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-17 12:35 PM | REPLY

If you knew what your fool head was talking about. You wouldn't look like such a dummkopt.

This is why I no longer respond to requests for citations. It's a waste of time.
National review? What kind of idiot posts NR stories?
Posted by BruceBanner
REDSTATE???/? Giggles hehehehe that's hilarious.
Posted by LauraMohr
National Review??? Seriously???
Posted by LauraMohr
Western Journal is a garbage pile. No wonder Boaz links to it.
Posted by LauraMohr
That publication--Spectator--is obscene, I will never read anything in it. Boaz needs to buy some morals.
Posted by danni

POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-16 10:31 PM | REPLY

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 12:48 PM

On this we actually agree. What the Democrats did was absolutely deplorable and made a mockery of the process.

Hardly.

If it was such a mockery then an uninhibited investigation should have been just fine.

It wasn't. Because it wasn't going to be fine.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 12:54 PM

If it was such a mockery then an uninhibited investigation should have been just fine.

It wasn't. Because it wasn't going to be fine.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 12:54 PM | Reply

The bare and honest truth.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 12:55 PM

Because it wasn't going to be fine.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 12:54 PM | Reply

The reason that explains why Trump is interfering with all the investigations involving him and his.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 12:57 PM

If it was such a mockery then an uninhibited investigation should have been just fine.

Yeah, just drag it out for months and reward Democrats' for attempting to run-out-the-clock.

It wasn't. Because it wasn't going to be fine.

#30 | POSTED BY JPW

The allegations were beyond ridiculous and if you are honest with yourself, you'd admit it.

#29 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You still don't see the irony in the fact that you are 100% the wrong person to be calling that out. Putting it all in bold doesn't make it any less self-ironic.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:57 PM

Yeah, just drag it out for months and reward Democrats' for attempting to run-out-the-clock.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019

What clock? Trump had two more years in his term.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 12:59 PM

What clock? Trump had two more years in his term.

#34 | POSTED BY ZED

They were hoping to take the Senate in '18.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:01 PM

They were hoping to take the Senate in '18.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:01 PM

Ah, so they were hoping that lightning would strike.

Know what? Even if true, and even if it happened, it would have been a proportional response to Merrick.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 01:04 PM

@#30 ... If it was such a mockery then an uninhibited investigation should have been just fine. ...

The fact that there was an investigation, the scope of which was restricted and limited by the White House, and even after the results of that restricted and limited investigation were given, the appointment was just barely confirmed. Even though Republicans hold a Senate majority.

Just how bad of an appointee was Justice Kavanaugh?

Was Pres Trump more concerned about losing than the quality of his appointment?

#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 01:04 PM

The fact is that a serious inquiry by the FBI, without direction from the WH, would have helped an innocent Judge Keg's standing enormously.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-17 01:05 PM

#29 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

The difference is, I read all the leftwing spin I can handle, right here on the leftwing retort, whereas you refuse to read anything outside of your blue bubble.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 01:06 PM

From the Senate report (emphasis mine):

All interviews were conducted in an objective and fair manner aimed at producing a final
determination of fact with respect to the allegations levied against Justice Kavanaugh. In order to
accomplish that, investigators conducted extensive interviews with individuals who knew Justice
Kavanaugh in high school and college; investigators also conducted extensive interviews with
individuals who knew the accusers in order to better weigh the credibility of their allegations. In
sum, the Committee spoke to 45 individuals and collected 25 written statements.
[snip]

After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially
credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating
to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators
found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations
brought against Justice Kavanaugh. In other words, following the separate and extensive
investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of
the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh. The details of the Committee's
investigation, broken down by claim, are provided below.


You can read the whole thing here:

townhall.com

I tried linking the report itself but it wouldn't link. If you go to the Townhall link I provided the 2nd paragraph provides a direct link to the Senate report.

My apologies for the convoluted process for accessing the report.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:30 PM

Know what? Even if true, and even if it happened, it would have been a proportional response to Merrick.

#36 | POSTED BY ZED

I agree, which is why I said what I said about not ripping Dems if they find themselves in a position to do just that.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:32 PM

(he eagerly lied about things that he knew it would be difficult to "prove" he was lying about). The "Beach Week Ralph Club" was because he had a weak stomach? Give me a break.
But, for Republicans, that (lying) is a preferred trait in their politicians and representatives. Electing and appointing liars is just another way that they can "own the libs".

#5 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-09-17 10:14 AM | REPLY

Didn't he take an oath at his confirmation? I mean if it was so obvious that he lied would that be breaking the law? Oh wait, he said in highschool one night he drank 3 beers but someone who knew someone who was related to someone who was at that party said he drank 4. LIE!!!!! Makes total sense to impeach or better yet ruin his and his family's life over that. People like numbskull are how do you put it deranged. To have something like this just dominate their lives is beyond pathetic.

#42 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-17 02:43 PM

You can read the whole thing here:
townhall.com
I tried linking the report itself but it wouldn't link. If you go to the Townhall link I provided the 2nd paragraph provides a direct link to the Senate report.
My apologies for the convoluted process for accessing the report.

#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-17 01:30 PM | FLAG:

Sorry but the Dems don't care about how much investigating the FBI did, just keep it going until you find something damnit!

#43 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-17 02:47 PM

Allegations with no facts to back them up, are just that - allegations.

#44 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-17 02:57 PM

The allegations were beyond ridiculous and if you are honest with yourself, you'd admit it.

Nonsense. You're inserting your unprovable personal opinion in here as a fact.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 03:13 PM

#42 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Yeah... you keep believing what you want.

Like I said, he had no problem lying about anything that he knew could not be verified.

You think "Renate Alumni" (Renate was the name of a girl at their school) was REALLY just a reference to their "respect and friendship"?

Most people do stupid things in college (or high school). I did stupid things as well. I have been blackout drunk. I have overindulged in alcohol over spring break and "ralphed". I have said misogynistic things about girls I knew to my friends.

I do not believe that is disqualifying for being on the Supreme Court. But lying under oath is. Even if it is a lie that can't be "proven". Maybe a couple of his "explanations" might be true, but that ALL of them are strains credulity.

Maybe you are really that straight laced that you have never been in that type of environment. And sheltered enough that you never had friends like that.

But I can tell you... He is a liar.

And Republicans are perfectly fine with that.

#46 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-17 03:14 PM

I posted this on another thread but it's applicable here as well:

I love that Leland Keyser has gone from potentially Ford's star witness to her biggest nightmare.
She has totally backed off any claim of believing Ford. She has said that the whole thing just wasn't right and when she thought about who she was at the time of the alleged incident she said there's no way she wouldn't have wondered where Ford ran off too and there's no way she wouldn't have been concerned about how Ford got home. Further, she has said that she rarely ever hung out with kids from Kav's school and that after looking at his High School pictures and maps she concluded that she didn't even know him and probably never even met him.

The cherry on top is that she is claiming that Ford's team threatened to smear her if she didn't toe the line.

Then there's Ramirez. She was hammered, has fuzzy recollection of the event, isn't even sure if Kav was even in the room, had to be cajoled by partisans to make the allegation. 4 of the alleged witnesses she named had no recollection of this event.

Now, Steir's (a Clinton operative and longtime political foe of Kav) allegation is actually second-to-third hand (he refused to be interviewed) and is so ridiculous - that friends of a naked Kav "pushed his penis into a chick's hand" - that it can only be laughed at. On top of that, the alleged victim refused interview and her friends claim she had no recollection of this even happening (spotting a trend here?). Even further, the NYT embarrassingly omitted this crucial point and only added it after Mollie Hemingway pointed it out on Twitter and they got slammed on Twitter right after that.

WaPo, LAT and CBS Evening News are all calling this crap out. That in itself is amazing.

The left really shot themselves in the foot trying to resurrect this garbage.

#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-17 03:12 PM | FLAG:

At this point a reasonable person can only conclude that Ford was lying and these 2 NYT writers unwittingly did her a huge disservice by trying to resurrect this. The last thing she wants is any actual and critical scrutiny of her story.

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-17 03:14 PM

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 03:16 PM

Stop trying to make your position stronger than it is by claiming things about hypothetical "reasonable" people.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 03:43 PM

How about "a person with common sense"?

:-)

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 03:46 PM

Well... that I can't argue with.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 06:10 PM

Defending rapists gets JeffJ hard. And you can guess what he does next.

#51 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-09-18 08:14 AM

Defending rapists gets JeffJ hard. And you can guess what he does next.

#51 | POSTED BY BLACKHEARTSUN

Hi Boyddirksteppbarneybadweekcooper. How are things?

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 09:12 AM

WaPo is a sham newspaper.

#7 | POSTED BY a sham poster

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-18 11:51 AM

At this point a reasonable person can only conclude that Ford was lying and these 2 NYT writers unwittingly did her a huge disservice by trying to resurrect this. The last thing she wants is any actual and critical scrutiny of her story.
#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Any reasonable person should be able to conclude Kavanaugh has serious credibility issues and Kavanaugh's alleged actions fit a pattern of extreme alcohol use and treating women as objects during that time in his life.

Ford is simply more credible especially given Kavanaugh's lies about aspects of his drinking and related issues like the yearbook.

Did it happen? I don't know. Based upon the evidence and credibility, it is likely something happened closer to Ford's description.

But to pretend you know Ford is lying is pretty stupid. I only expect that level of stupidity out of Nulli or Sniper.

That said: I don't care if it happened. It was 30 damn years ago when he was a stupid kid.

#54 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 01:27 PM

Defending rapists gets JeffJ hard. And you can guess what he does next. - #51 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-09-18 08:14 AM |
I haven't seen Jeff defending Clinton. Did I miss something?

#55 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 07:07 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Migrant Kids may be Adopted (82 comments)

Trump Knew He Was Violating the Phony Emoluments Clause (53 comments)

U.S. Ambassador Ties Ukraine Aid Holdup Directly to Trump (51 comments)

Dems See Impeachment Taking Longer Than Expected (50 comments)

Mentions of Government as Top U.S. Problem Near Record High (49 comments)

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin Regrets Covering Clinton Email Story (32 comments)

Turkey, Russia make Syria Deal (31 comments)

Facebook Will Allow Politicians to Lie on Facebook (27 comments)

Amazon Becoming Largest Military Contractor in U.S (25 comments)