Kurt Eichenwald is a massive spreader of misinformation in support of the DNC. Back on October 28, he was spreading around the fact that the FBI only found 3 emails, and that Clinton wasn't involved, and that it was from one of her former aides. Rather than wait for facts, he immediately went into Attack dog mode.

My favorite part was, as it became obvious how wrong his information was, he said his tweets evolved rather than admit he was wrong.

Just say no to bad reporters.

I just can't get worked up over any of this anymore. Most (all?) of this stuff has been widely known for some time, and it doesn't tell us anything about Trump's repugnant behavior that we didn't already know.

@1: It's amusing that you would criticize someone else's inability to admit when they're wrong.

@2 Oh please. That criticism is a joke coming from somebody who recommends an article from one of the biggest Iraq War cheerleaders, Andrew Sullivan.

@3

So you disagree with Sullivan that Clinton is a lousy candidate?

@4 They examined hundreds of thousands of emails. They found nothing. My point isn't that the FBI thing was a story or a non-story, but that Kurt was being a disingenuous hack who was touting his FBI creds to back up his misinformation, and denigrating anybody who took umbrage with his misinformation.

@5 I'm not surprised that Sullivan, a Catholic conservative hack, thinks Hillary is a terrible candidate. But the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. I don't support Trump simply because he's Hillary's enemy.

@6

I didn't ask if he is your friend or if you are surprised by Sullivan. You suggested that because Sullivan supported invading Iraq, everything he says is invalid. Therefore does that not mean that you disagree with his assessment and think that Clinton is the best candidate, or do you think that she is terrible, thereby agreeing with Sullivan?

@3: Oh, lookitchu, researching my post history to find something to spit back in an attempt to upset me. It's adorable, the new ways you find to reinforce my opinion every time.

Well, it's obvious that no one has a brain left. No wonder considering the last year or so.

@7 I might agree with his final assessment. I don't know. I haven't read his opinion and refuse to actually partake in any details of his opinion. He could have opinions about her that I agree with, but I wouldn't know because I refuse to read the motherfucker, and I refuse to validate his opinion. All I know is you telling me that he thinks she's terrible, and that doesn't surprise me in the least.

@8 Dude, that was from like, what, three or four days ago. I noticed you posting it, and then somebody else posted a comment about it in a different thread. That's not exactly deep thought. I just was like "Lookit this moron posting about Andrew Sullivan as if AS should be taken seriously now." Is that really the best you can do?

@6: Dan Savage supported the Iraq War, and he is still right about fucking (usually). Eichenwald may had gotten the email # wrong, but that doesn't mean his conclusion was wrong, that this list is wrong, or that it's unenjoyable. Ad Hominem is a fallacy, not a verdict.

Calling everyone who's been wrong a "hack" just makes you look like a misanthrope.

@10: How about that time you refused to believe the KKK endorsed Trump because you were too lazy to google it yourself, and equated Daily Kos with Breitbart? Or that time you felt the need to point out Andrew Sullivan's Catholicism, as if it had any bearing on his credibility or the topic of discussion?

Is there anything sadder than an internet pissing match about who can be up their own ass the farthest?

Actually yes there is. Me reading it.

Sometimes a comment thread flame war is so bad that it develops entertainment value. This one, unfortunately, has no value whatsoever.

@13 Iraq War Cheerleaders were kind of the worst type of people because their efforts had a body count. Savage and Sullivan were complete and utter dicks about it too, calling out anybody who disagreed with them. The former called the opposition squish brains. The latter thought they were just anti-Vietnam leftovers. Both lost their credibility on all politics because of their spectacular assholishness while sacrificing other people's lives.

Kurt Eichenwald just proved himself to be a DNC cheerleader for this election cycle. It's a minor infraction, but he can't be trusted when it comes to anything Trump or Clinton, and anything he tweets should be held in suspect.

@12 If you don't believe Andrew Sullivan's Catholicism has absolutely no bearing on his political choices, you must not have read much of his writing. I did back when I dated a Republican and he would send AS's conservative-humping blog entries. Much of it was steeped in religious morality.