Seeing as all this effort to is being expelled on a far smaller number of Hillary's emails while Secretary of State.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164
So Politico gives front page treatment to Hillary's emails this morning. And what does their top headline say 'Emails show Hillary's political sleuthing.'
"A new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails made public by the State Department Monday night show her expressing interest in the presidential aspirations of Gen. David Petraeus, who ultimately took a job as CIA director in the Obama administration instead of running for president in 2012 and was then driven out of government by scandal.
Clinton--who's now the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination next year--sounded intrigued when her longtime friend Sidney Blumenthal reported to her on a Saturday morning in February 2010 that prominent Washington foreign policy blogger Steve Clemons said Petraeus was talking frankly about the possibility of running for the White House.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164#ixzz3kUH67oYc
So we have the news flash that she was showing nascent political ambitions even then. I'm sure if we looked at the private emails of Chris Christie, Scott Walker or Jeb Bush-all who used private email for official business as well, there'd be no sign of any political ambitions.
Of course, the fact that all these GOP candidates also used private emails is somehow irrelevant to the media.
But the big question in such supposedly titillating revelations is what does any of this have to do with security? And how much of this is classified information?
The answer to both questions is kind of like what war's good for: absolutely nothing. So yet another nothingburger-just like Benghazi which started this whole wasteful farce in the first place.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/all-democrats-have-to-say-this-there-is.html
Meanwhile in the case of the Bush White House in 2007 holding back millions of emails in a serious congressional investigation into the partisan firing of attorney generals, the media isn't curious at all what happened to these.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820
The reason for this discrepancy is obvious: this is all about politics-and nothing else.
Paul Waldman has a good piece yesterday on why despite all the talk of Hillary 'mishandling' emailgate there was/is no answer she can give that will satisfy those who don't want to be satisfied-the GOP but also the MSM.
"I say that not because Clinton didn't do anything wrong. It was plainly a mistake to set up her private email account in the first place, and if she used emails for communication that should have been confined to official cables, then we can criticize her for that. The most informative recent piece I've seen on this topic comes from David Ignatius, who notes that the fact that her server was private isn't actually relevant to the question of classified information passing through it, since employees aren't allowed to send such information through state.gov emails either. More importantly, multiple officials tell him that classified information passes through non-classified channels all the time; it shouldn't happen, but it does."
"Nevertheless, the important thing to understand about the politics of what's happening now is this: There is nothing—nothing—that Hillary Clinton could have said or done differently since this became a public issue that could have made this go away, or that she could do now to "put it to rest."
"That's not because it's such a dreadfully serious issue, or because the American people care so deeply about the question of State Department email security that they'd never elect anyone to the White House who exercised anything less than the greatest of care with their communications, adhering to not just the spirit but the letter of every regulation. If you asked most voters what this is all about, they'd probably say "Um ... something about emails?" No, it's because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, and because she's running for president."
"That means that Republicans will never be satisfied with any answer she gives on this topic, or any other for that matter. She could read Trey Gowdy every email she ever wrote while giving him a foot massage, and it wouldn't change their conviction that there was still something nefarious hidden somewhere in something they hadn't seen. She could have personally delivered her server to Roger Ailes's office on the day the story broke, and it wouldn't change their determination to figure out what she's hiding."
http://prospect.org/article/why-nothing-can-quell-medias-addiction-clinton-scandals
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164
So Politico gives front page treatment to Hillary's emails this morning. And what does their top headline say 'Emails show Hillary's political sleuthing.'
"A new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails made public by the State Department Monday night show her expressing interest in the presidential aspirations of Gen. David Petraeus, who ultimately took a job as CIA director in the Obama administration instead of running for president in 2012 and was then driven out of government by scandal.
Clinton--who's now the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination next year--sounded intrigued when her longtime friend Sidney Blumenthal reported to her on a Saturday morning in February 2010 that prominent Washington foreign policy blogger Steve Clemons said Petraeus was talking frankly about the possibility of running for the White House.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164#ixzz3kUH67oYc
So we have the news flash that she was showing nascent political ambitions even then. I'm sure if we looked at the private emails of Chris Christie, Scott Walker or Jeb Bush-all who used private email for official business as well, there'd be no sign of any political ambitions.
Of course, the fact that all these GOP candidates also used private emails is somehow irrelevant to the media.
But the big question in such supposedly titillating revelations is what does any of this have to do with security? And how much of this is classified information?
The answer to both questions is kind of like what war's good for: absolutely nothing. So yet another nothingburger-just like Benghazi which started this whole wasteful farce in the first place.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/all-democrats-have-to-say-this-there-is.html
Meanwhile in the case of the Bush White House in 2007 holding back millions of emails in a serious congressional investigation into the partisan firing of attorney generals, the media isn't curious at all what happened to these.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820
The reason for this discrepancy is obvious: this is all about politics-and nothing else.
Paul Waldman has a good piece yesterday on why despite all the talk of Hillary 'mishandling' emailgate there was/is no answer she can give that will satisfy those who don't want to be satisfied-the GOP but also the MSM.
"I say that not because Clinton didn't do anything wrong. It was plainly a mistake to set up her private email account in the first place, and if she used emails for communication that should have been confined to official cables, then we can criticize her for that. The most informative recent piece I've seen on this topic comes from David Ignatius, who notes that the fact that her server was private isn't actually relevant to the question of classified information passing through it, since employees aren't allowed to send such information through state.gov emails either. More importantly, multiple officials tell him that classified information passes through non-classified channels all the time; it shouldn't happen, but it does."
"Nevertheless, the important thing to understand about the politics of what's happening now is this: There is nothing—nothing—that Hillary Clinton could have said or done differently since this became a public issue that could have made this go away, or that she could do now to "put it to rest."
"That's not because it's such a dreadfully serious issue, or because the American people care so deeply about the question of State Department email security that they'd never elect anyone to the White House who exercised anything less than the greatest of care with their communications, adhering to not just the spirit but the letter of every regulation. If you asked most voters what this is all about, they'd probably say "Um ... something about emails?" No, it's because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, and because she's running for president."
"That means that Republicans will never be satisfied with any answer she gives on this topic, or any other for that matter. She could read Trey Gowdy every email she ever wrote while giving him a foot massage, and it wouldn't change their conviction that there was still something nefarious hidden somewhere in something they hadn't seen. She could have personally delivered her server to Roger Ailes's office on the day the story broke, and it wouldn't change their determination to figure out what she's hiding."
http://prospect.org/article/why-nothing-can-quell-medias-addiction-clinton-scandals
"He is correct but he still gets my goat with the first paragraph where he still gives lip service to the idea that she did something wrong. No she didn't and this is proved by the fact that he is so vague about what this something wrong. "
This is what''s given this whole scandal legs: the idea that she has done something wrong; he rightly debunks the idea that she hasn't responded to the scandal the way she should have but he still buys into the idea that she did something wrong.
By saying this, even he's not fully closing the door on this phony issue. Was it a mistake that she used a private email? Well if so she has a lot of company among government officials at all levels of government.
"It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Clinton did nothing wrong. She followed every law and protocol that was in place when she was Secretary of State. She did what others in similar and other offices have done."
"Republicans have actually conducted business from non-governmental accounts anderased millions of emails. There was no howling about that from outraged Republicans."
"Never mind about what she "should have known" or "could have known." None of that matters. The Republicans have continually leaked information, much of which has proven to be false and misleading."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/all-democrats-have-to-say-this-there-is.html
Right. What I don't understand is why anyone in the media-certainly not Waldman who is on most issues pretty discerning and a liberal to boot-is in 2015 still reacting completely credulously to every new Clitnon scandal.
To me the next one that the GOP starts-maybe after it's clear that these emails have nothing to do with security or classified information-if these emails are classified then it's just not a useful designation they will find a new scandal-it would be better is the Waldmans of the world not give it their blessing as he gave emailgate by saying 'I'm not saying she did nothing wrong'-when he can never quite tell us what that 'something' is.
Maybe next time we don't treat Hillary like she's guilty until proven Innocent but maybe her GOP and MSM accusers ought to be assumed to be lying and embellishing until they are proven otherwise. The burden of proof on the accusers-this is actually how are government is supposed to work.
"Republicans have actually conducted business from non-governmental accounts anderased millions of emails. There was no howling about that from outraged Republicans."
"Never mind about what she "should have known" or "could have known." None of that matters. The Republicans have continually leaked information, much of which has proven to be false and misleading."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/all-democrats-have-to-say-this-there-is.html
Right. What I don't understand is why anyone in the media-certainly not Waldman who is on most issues pretty discerning and a liberal to boot-is in 2015 still reacting completely credulously to every new Clitnon scandal.
To me the next one that the GOP starts-maybe after it's clear that these emails have nothing to do with security or classified information-if these emails are classified then it's just not a useful designation they will find a new scandal-it would be better is the Waldmans of the world not give it their blessing as he gave emailgate by saying 'I'm not saying she did nothing wrong'-when he can never quite tell us what that 'something' is.
Maybe next time we don't treat Hillary like she's guilty until proven Innocent but maybe her GOP and MSM accusers ought to be assumed to be lying and embellishing until they are proven otherwise. The burden of proof on the accusers-this is actually how are government is supposed to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment