Firefighters had a hard time knocking down a fire at the home of a hoarder.
Tracy S.: I love how biased the media is. We all know who they were pulling for all along. Hillary Rodham Clinton. They write a myriad of articles that either leave out or spin their tales with little to no substantive facts in them. We're used to that. But Wasserman-Shultz was caught red handed. Wikileaks exposed her e-mails showing she plotted to make Sanders look weak and like a bumbling idiot. They showcased how the DNC was conspiring with the media to make Clinton the victor no matter who was winning in reality. So I wonder why this article like a plethora of others on the subject make it look like Wasserman-Schultz was the brainchild behind all this. Why? Isn't that the number one question? Who was she working for? All signs point to Hillary. But like the e-mails investigated by the FBI for a year that although told the story of a liar and a fraud, she will remain unscathed by scandal and can keep forging ahead with her campaign. They can write it up any way they want but the facts speak for themselves. An example from this article of their antics questioning Hillary's ability to overcome "Republicans’ foam-at-the-mouth attacks." I mean, if Hillary wouldn't give so much ammunition, wouldn't the foam at the mouth attacks as you say be a little less? But no, that doesn't sit well with the rhetoric they'd like you to ingest and regurgitate to others as fact. So in their minds' it's all everyone else beating down poor victim Hillary.