Monday, September 5, 2016

Nancy Pelosi Says it

What she said is true but the media can't deal with it. That the email thing is overblown nonsense on stilts. She didn't put it quite this way of course. But she said what needed to be said:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued that “too much is being made” of the latest installment in the email controversy that has dogged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“I think they shouldn’t be that concerned,” Pelosi said on Monday on “CBS This Morning” about Americans worried that Clinton told the FBI she was unaware the “c” marked on certain government material stood for “confidential.”

“I think the secretary of state deals with a large number of issues -- 30,000 emails, we’re talking about a few that may have been marked confidential -- classified is really and secret and highly sensitive is where it becomes more problematic,” she said.

“But the fact is that whatever it was that Hillary Clinton dealt with in that manner had no threat to our security and I think that too much is being made of this.”

"Pelosi then pointed to her own credentials as the top Democrat in Congress dealing with intelligence issues."

“I think much too much is being made of this. And I say that as the top Democrat on the intelligence committee for years.”

“This is really much ado about something, but too much ado,” she said.

"Pelosi doubled down when pressed about the 39 occasions that Clinton told the FBI that she couldn't recall receiving training about using her email for transmitting confidential information.

“We’re talking about at least 30,000 emails. You’re talking about one thousandth of that,” she said. “This is a distraction from what we really should be talking about.”

Read more:

Exactly. In a 2 hour interview they are going to cherrypick anything that taken out of context sounds like a big deal. 'She said she doesn't recall 35 times. Can you believe that? I have total recall about trivial details from many years ago!'

Someone like The Fix's Chris Cillizza probably has nothing in his life but trivial details he writes so few columns. The only time he ever writes is if it's about Hillary's emails.

We always know the punchline: 'It just looks bad.'

Why the media is so biased against Hillary is a big question. Answering it requires going back 25 years. Josh Marshall talks about it.

I think that Eric Boehlert touched on it yesterday. This is like Ahab and the Whale. The media mocked the Clintons in 1992 as Arkansan rubes who weren't like 'People like us' here in Washington DC.
The Clintons kind of proved them wrong. So now the media hits them the other way: as cynical insiders who cut corners. Who 'hide behind legality. You know, as they can't catch them doing anything illegal, then the Clintons clearly hid behind legality. 

The media is still trying to vindicate 25 years of bad Clinton coverage.

At the end of the day, you can't take anything the media says seriously. Take this furor over pressers.

Before taking off, Hillary Clinton walked to the back of the plane to greet the press and promised to take questions later today.

So the media is pleased at least, right? Of course not:

"CNN greeted this news with sarcasm and derp."

There's no pleasing these people. Which just proves they aren't operating in good faith.

UPDATE: Nate Silver notes Krugman's takedown of his own paper's election coverage. 

"Looks like @nytimes isn't tweeting out Krugman's column, which was basically a subtweet of NYT's campaign coverage."

Also here, where he links to a WaPo(!) story about Trump U. pay-for-play scandal, which the NYT didn't cover at all."

No comments:

Post a Comment