Friday, September 09, 2016

Hillary can't keep her own lies straight

If you're wondering why Hillary's email saga never goes away, it's because - as a rule - people don't like to be lied to.  And Hillary just insists on insulting your intelligence over and over.  To wit:

There is no classified information.
OK, there's classified information but it was not classified at the time.
OK, it was classified at the time, but there were no markings.
OK, there were markings but there were no classification headings.

But wait a minute: back a couple months ago, Hillary said "headings are not classification notices."

The whole "markings" excuse is a complete red herring anyway since (as only George Stephanopoulos has the temerity to notice) it was Hillary's duty to protect classified information whether marked or unmarked.  Is Hillary really so dim that she couldn't recognize that emails about pending drone strikes may rise to the level of classified information?  Is that really her go-to excuse: I was too dumb to know and depending on State Department flunkies to tell me?  Well, give that woman Air Force One.

C'mon American media: do your job.


Anonymous said...

Yesterday, from the Washington Post's conservative editorial board: The Hillary Clinton email story is out of control

In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently.

Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime [with Matt Lauer], several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.

Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.

Roger Bournival said...

C'mon American media: do your job.

I hope you're not holding your breath, mate.

Eric said...

"I wonder if these satellite photos of North Korean nuclear assets are classified. Well, Huma didn't mark them, so they must be good" - Hillary, probably.
"What's the big deal?" - Washington Post, owned by a Clinton Foundation donor

Anonymous said...

The Washington Post = carrying water, because of the owner's potential political leanings

The Washington Times = owned by hard right Moonies, but trust their down-the-middle reporting

The only news sources to pick up the Times' unsourced, stillborn scoop on "Korean nuke email danger" were outlets like Daily Caller and Breitbart. Your doing so one year later isn't punditry, it's archaeology.

Is there any special reason you'll link to the Washington Post when it publishes an editorial titled "President Obama’s false choice against the Islamic State" or when it runs a piece titled "Hillary Clinton's historical problem with honesty," but pivot to the owner's donations when the Post runs an editorial saying the Clinton email story is going nowhere?

Also, Bezos' PAC gives equally to Democrats and Republicans, cycle after cycle. Maybe his Post ran the Hillary editorial about the "overblown" email dead end on the day one of his liberal checks cleared. Maybe the other two pieces ran on GOP donation days.

Eric said...

In 2034, we'll be able to see the un-redacted email from Huma, the puppet-master.

I do enjoy the logic that Hillary did nothing wrong because all her emails have been redacted or erased with BleachBit.