The Beltway media went into all out frenzy mode today in light of the new State IG report. This despite the fact that it revealed nothing new and that all this hubbub obscures the fact that previous Secretary of States have used private email.
Chris Cillizza was besides himself with glee.
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse."
"This is a bad day for Clinton's presidential campaign. Period. For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/?postshare=1531464196804484&tid=ss_tw
Chris Cillizza was besides himself with glee.
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse."
"This is a bad day for Clinton's presidential campaign. Period. For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/?postshare=1531464196804484&tid=ss_tw
I am a hard-core Clinton person I'll be the first to admit. But even so, what exactly makes it worse? We already knew everything in it and we knew this report was coming out.
But here is a Forbes piece that says more than that it's not 'period' that this is a bad day but actually the IG report has vindicated Hillary.
"It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/2/#602e23cd6f9e
But here is a Forbes piece that says more than that it's not 'period' that this is a bad day but actually the IG report has vindicated Hillary.
"It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/2/#602e23cd6f9e
Ok, so how has Cillizza lied? Well this is what he said:
"There are two very important differences among Clinton, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, and former secretaries Powell and Condoleezza Rice when it comes to email practices."
"The first is that Clinton is the first and, to date, only secretary of state to exclusively use a private email address and server to conduct her business as the nation's top diplomat. All of the other names above maintained both a private and a government-issued email address. That alone doesn't make her guilty. But it does make her unique."
"Second, Clinton is the only one of that group who is currently (a) running for president and (b) the very likely nominee for one of the country's two major parties."
Actually the only difference is that she is running for President. Powell in fact used a private email for most of his business just as she does.
"where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard."
Because Cillizza and his Beltway friends aren't trying to destroy Colin Powell. They want to destroy Hillary Clinton.
Ok, you might say that Cillizza may not have lied about her being the only one to use private email exclusively, he just didn't know. But that's just it: if you don't know don't make such absurdly strong moral claims as you are just speculating.
"There are two very important differences among Clinton, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, and former secretaries Powell and Condoleezza Rice when it comes to email practices."
"The first is that Clinton is the first and, to date, only secretary of state to exclusively use a private email address and server to conduct her business as the nation's top diplomat. All of the other names above maintained both a private and a government-issued email address. That alone doesn't make her guilty. But it does make her unique."
"Second, Clinton is the only one of that group who is currently (a) running for president and (b) the very likely nominee for one of the country's two major parties."
Actually the only difference is that she is running for President. Powell in fact used a private email for most of his business just as she does.
"where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard."
Because Cillizza and his Beltway friends aren't trying to destroy Colin Powell. They want to destroy Hillary Clinton.
Ok, you might say that Cillizza may not have lied about her being the only one to use private email exclusively, he just didn't know. But that's just it: if you don't know don't make such absurdly strong moral claims as you are just speculating.
Mike, if the media had a supposed "liberal bias" then Powell would have been in all the headlines.
ReplyDeleteI first read heard about the story in a RedState headline today, and I knew it couldn't be that bad because it said she "violated rules" not that she "broke the law."
"Violated rules" in a headline on an arch-conservative site (#NeverTrump status not withstanding) is not a strong indictment.
Of course I fully expect Trump himself to lie about this the the greatest extent possible. Perhaps he'll say that the emails were to North Korean assassins who killed Vince Foster, as well as people who planted explosives in the WTC, and to the Illuminati and the Tri-lateral commission to arrange brain programming micro chips to be added to the usual chem-trails sprayed on America's heartland and apple pies. Then we can go over to Sumner's and see otherwise intellilgent-enough-to-be-literate commentators like E. Harding and Art Deco defend Trump on that statement.
BTW, have you noticed that Trump's usual method of disseminating bat-shit-crazy nonsense is to bring it up in an indirect way:
Delete"I would never bring this up, but..."
and then he goes ahead and brings it up. It reminds me of that scene in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when Mark Antony makes his speech to the crowd following Caesar's assassination, outwardly justifying the assassins, but actually whipping the mob into a frenzy against them. That's his go-to device to inject maximally loony tune accusations into the dialog.
Right. He always says 'Now this I would never say but some people say it' then he says it
ReplyDeleteI did a little trolling myself: suggesting to Sumner that if he were to ask the Trump supporters in his comments section "What evidence would change your mind on Trump?" the only thing any of them would be willing to sign up for at this point (knowing now that Trump can take three or more positions in one sentence) would have to be something that makes him seem effeminate to them. I.e. it can't be a policy position or a character issue (like lying or murder) because Trump policy changes from tweet to tweet, and lying and murder are macho. It could only be something like it being revealed that he stars as the bottom in gay porn videos that would cause them to wander away, and if that were the case they probably wouldn't want to admit that's the only thing that could do it. Thus I suggested he'd get zero meaningful responses to such a question.
ReplyDelete