which is the entire point of this article you’re responding to in the first place.
I was responding to a specific statement in the article that has made it seem as though the die-hard Clinton supporters are still out in force. In my experience, they are not. The people out in force are those criticizing Trump. However, it’s been a common tactic of the die-hard Trump supporters to equate “Trump criticism” with “Clinton support” as though it’s not possible to critique Trump without supporting Clinton.
Actually, my biggest criticism of this article as a whole is the condescending attitude and multitude of ad hominems used, which detracts from the stated purpose of the article, though Sean Neville also brings up several valid points about the issue with Comey bringing the investigation into the public light, which illustrate that it wasn’t about not being “fair,” but is in fact against FBI policy. On that point, statements like “the great villain Comey ‘interfered’ to prevent what would’ve been the glorious ascendance of Hillary,” make the same false equivalence that criticism of Comey’s actions during the campaign and its effect on the outcome necessarily equates to support for Clinton.
as though it is impossible to do that AND critique Trump’s performance. Using terms like “they won’t shut up” is also telling — why should they?
The issue that I have is that critiques of Trump’s performance is always met with “but Hillary!” remarks, even now, as though her behavior before or during the election has any bearing whatsoever on Trump’s performance now.
your entire argument is that we should ignore both her conduct during the campaign and how the media blindsided themselves, effectively erasing her own culpability in the matter
No it’s not. My argument is that the counter to criticisms of Trump the president is not Hillary the candidate, which is what happens in every single piece about Trump (and is largely present even within this article, where criticisms of Comey are painted as “dead-end Clinton supporters”). Criticizing Trump (or Comey) is not inherently an endorsement of Clinton, and there are plenty of criticisms of Clinton out there.
That said, it’s entirely fair to ask and discuss how the election would have turned out had either both FBI investigations (the Trump-Russia one had been ongoing since July, according to Comey, himself) been made public, or neither, as well as Comey’s motivations for making only one of them public, and one does not need to be a “dead-end Clinton supporter” to raise such concerns. This is especially the case since one of the big anti-Clinton reasons was that she was under active investigation by the FBI (more so than why she was under investigation). That argument would hold zero water had it been known that Trump and his team were also under active investigation, arguably for something that is at least as treasonous as the email issues (if not a fair bit more, given that the current allegations are active collusion with a foreign government for purposes of obtaining the presidency).
You’re criticizing Trump’s supporters for their rationale in supporting him, which includes their opposition to her and their reasons for that opposition.
I’m criticizing Trump’s supporters for a) ignoring the very things their own candidate has been doing that they’ve railed so hard against Clinton for, and b) beating a dead horse and not actually doing anything.
Articles like this one are great for detailing the rationale and providing discourse for such topics and keeping each other honest, since it’s on a platform that allows people to respond to one another, and TYT and the author have not closed responses. On that front, it has served its purpose, and that’s good.
However, why does it keep coming back up in general to begin with, especially since it was Comey, himself, who said that their conclusions had not changed and the investigation was again closed?
My original response was regarding the idea that it’s Clinton supporters who are constantly bringing her and the emails back up. In my experience, that’s not the case, because there’s no need to, because Trump has done and said enough things warrant standing or falling by his own merits. Rather it’s the Trump supporters who keep circling back to it.
Clinton has stepped down from public offices, which takes her out of the official political game, which means that bringing it back up isn’t going to serve any kind of purpose for blackballing her or otherwise damaging her career.
If the purpose of constantly coming back to it is because you (general) genuinely believe that she committed illegal acts, then build a case and bring a lawsuit against her. With the amount of Republicans who have been chanting for her imprisonment, including Trump, it shouldn’t be difficult to get the financial backing to actually do so. The same goes for the institutions that enabled such scandal to begin with. However, that does also open up the same on Trump’s side of the coin, with the institutions that enabled even the potential for foreign interference in US elections.