Part 3—Imitation of news: Yesterday, Candidate Clinton said it again, during a press avail:
“No matter what anybody tries to say, the facts are stubborn. What I did was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost, OK?”
It certainly wasn’t OK on today’s Morning Joe! In that program’s opening segment, everyone said that statement was false—without naming the law or regulation Clinton had violated.
Meanwhile, there’s that passage from the New York Times’ front page, two Sundays ago:
“When she took office in 2009, with ever more people doing government business through email, the State Department allowed the use of home computers as long as they were secure...There appears to have been no prohibition on the exclusive use of a private server.”
We never assume the Times is right concerning such matters. But as is always the case in these matters, the heated discussion of “emailgate” begs for clarification—a service the national press corps is rarely equipped to provide.
As the scribes flog emailgate, the need for clarification grows. But clarity isn’t the press corps’ game. Consider a brief exchange from Monday night’s PBS NewsHour.
As we noted yesterday, Gwen Ifill had gone to the fair. She mentioned the pork chops, the butter and fun at the Iowa state fair. Through videotape, she let us see that many hopefuls were there.
That said, do we know how this hoopla will turn out by the time of next year’s Iowa caucuses? Does current polling give us a clue about how this thing will turn out?
Briefly, Ifill spoke with a local professor about this rather basic question. Their exchange made little sense—but then, what else is new?
IFILL (8/17/15): Are voters engaged or simply curious? Iowa voters have a long history of favoring insurgents and unknowns, at least early on.That was Ifill’s full exchange with the Drake professor. We’d have to say that the NewsHour was pretending to provide analysis there. Let’s note a few basic points:
The Iowa caucuses next February are an important springboard to primary season, but there are no guarantees. Ronald Reagan? George H. W. Bush? Bill Clinton? They all lost here.
Naturally, the state fair has its own poll, with corn kernels used to cast votes. The real polls show Sanders in a solid second place in Iowa, while in New Hampshire, next door to his home state of Vermont, one recent poll has him ahead.
Arthur Sanders, a political science professor at Drake University and no relation to the senator, watches all the fuss with an expert’s amusement. He suspects the Sanders and Trump surges are summer romances.
Does August bear any resemblance to what we are going to see in February?
SANDERS: No.
(Long pause)
IFILL: Tell me what you mean.
SANDERS: Well, on the Democratic side, the answer is partly, probably yes, because the contours of that race is relatively clear. You have got a distinctive front-runner. You have got a significant challenge on the left. And then you have got a few other candidates who are hoping to emerge of that struggle.
On the Republican side, you have an unprecedented number of candidates. We have seventeen people running. The distance between second place and ninth place might be two percent on caucus night.
According to Ifill, the professor thinks that Trump and Sanders’ current poll numbers are examples of “summer romance.”
For all we know, that may be his real opinion! But in the actual Q-and-A, the professor didn’t state, defend, support or explain that view.
In his first statement, the professor seems to say that February’s voting won’t “bear any resemblance” to current polling, in which Trump and Sanders are doing quite well.
When he says this, he’s asked to explain. In his subsequent statement, he semi-contradicts himself about the Democratic race, concerning which he makes no predictions. He then offers a rather irrelevant semi-prediction about the Republican side.
(The second- through ninth-place finishers may be tightly bunched!)
By the way, was the professor talking about future results in Iowa and New Hampshire? Or was he discussing Iowa only?
That point wasn’t made clear. As delivered on the air, that passage had the form of news analysis, but it was just a pretense.
Crackers, please! The professor never actually said that we’re looking at summer romance. He never said that Sanders and Trump will do less well than current polls suggest.
If that really is his view, he was never asked to state, explain or support it.
On Monday evening, PBS viewers got to think that they were watching “the news.” In that particular passage, they got to think that they were watching an interview with a local expert.
In truth, they were being entertained with a purely formal presentation. In that puzzling interview, they were handed an imitation of news.
In the subsequent pundit segment, Judy Woodruff and a pair of pundits extended the theme of the summer romance—and the general inanity.
As they started, the pair of pundits laughingly said that they don’t know who will win the Iowa caucuses. Still and all, they extended the enjoyable theme of the “summer fling,” the “summer loving.”
As they did, they skipped the chance to inform the public about why early attention on Iowa polling may be especially silly—why it’s silly to invest much time on polling this early in the process.
The Iowa caucuses are hard to poll or predict. The added difficulty stems from the peculiar, time-consuming caucus format itself.
Uh-oh! The time-consuming caucus format tends to lower turnout. This complicates polling, since it’s especially hard to predict who will turn out for the grueling, hours-long sessions.
To what extent is Iowa turnout reduced by the caucus format? Consider the numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008, when both parties conducted spirited nomination fights.
Below, you see the approximate voter turnouts in these two states for the November 2008 general election. Note—Iowa is the larger state:
Turnout for general election, November 2008More than twice as many people voted in Iowa! But during the primary season, turnout for the Iowa caucuses was actually smaller than the turnout for the New Hampshire primary. In these approximate numbers, you see a price that is paid for the laborious Iowa process:
Iowa: 1,524,000
New Hampshire: 707,000
Turnout for caucuses/primary, January 2008Except in the most general sense, it’s silly to pay a lot of attention to polling data at this time, as our cable news divisions are currently doing. It’s especially silly in Iowa, where polling is complicated by the difficulty of knowing who will show up for the hours-long caucus sessions.
Iowa: 359,000
New Hampshire: 518,000
Can we talk? Many deeply important issues need to be clarified at this time, emailgate among them. But especially on our cable “news” channels, it’s been all Trump, all polls all the time.
On Monday evening’s NewsHour, they gamboled and played at the fair. They entertained PBS viewers with pork chops and summer romance—and with the latest pretense.
They could have explained how silly it is to obsess on polling data in August, especially in the Hawkeye State. But that would spoil the fun for their colleagues on the other news/entertainment channels, who are laboring over the numbers every night of the week.
(Except on the weekends, when they run their “true crime” programs.)
Ifill’s interview with the professor made no earthly sense. It was an imitation of an interview. Plainly, it was a pretense.
Meanwhile, Candidate Trump had actually released an important policy plan. How did the NewsHour handle that? What about other top outlets?
Tomorrow: Judy visits the plan
"So I wish Hillary Clinton would be respectful enough to say, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.” I wish she wouldn’t insult our intelligence by claiming she only did what other secretaries of state had done. None of her predecessors, after all, went to the trouble and expense of a private email server."
ReplyDelete- Eugene Robinson Aug 17, 2015 WaPo
Now Howler libs will contort themselves denying Robinson's bona fide liberal credentials.
I don't remember appointing him as spokesman for all liberals, everywhere.
DeleteAs has been frequently noted, there is a faction on the left that suffers as much from CDS as conservatives do. He does sound uninformed. Maybe that ignorance motivated his statement.
Eugene Robinson is a villager insider who stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back on 2008 and is doing it again in 2015. That is how you keep your credentials with the villagers.
Delete**********
HERE’S TO HIM, MR. ROBINSON! The Post’s Eugene Robinson thinks he’s a liberal. Someone should tell him he’s not:
.....
But then, Robinson seems to be a familiar press corps “liberal”—the kind who mainly makes fun of “liberals.” Indeed, right at the start of this morning’s piece, he makes a burlesque of a “liberal” concern, just the way the fakers-and-phonies all over talk radio do:
*****http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021805.shtml
If you're looking for liberals to defend Eugene Robinson, you came to the wrong place.
Delete************************
Eugene Robinson: Ditto for Robinson, who trashed Candidate Gore from his post as “Style” editor—who types this, with straight face, today:
ROBINSON (9/2/08): Whatever the political impact, so much for the John McCain we thought we knew. In choosing Palin, he cynically did the kind of thing that his party is always accusing Democrats of doing.
“The John McCain we thought we knew?” Readers, there never was such a John McCain; there was only the John McCain of this palace insider’s approved scripts. Those scripts were once required typing; now, divergence is permitted. But if Robinson ever believed those scripts, he should resign, as incompetent. Now.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090208.shtml
*******************************
@12:32
DeleteBush derangement syndrome eclipses any CDS. Where is Robinson wrong on the facts? Name another Sec Def who relied exclusively, or even intermittently, on a personal remote email server stashed in their personal dwelling?
If this was a common place occurrence that was permissible at State, why does the Obama Administration continue to deny they knew about this arrangement even after being confronted with evidence that they did know?
"Proof: Despite Denials, White House Aides Knew about Hillary’s Private E-Mail Account"
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009
mm, @ 12:32, all cicero asked was for anyone to prove him right. You both just did. Your tribal response was pleasing to you. Also to cicero. More importantly to Bob Somerby, whose main theme for several year is that liberals are tribal, lazy and dumb.
DeleteYou and the media are consistently and intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
DeleteSecretary Clinton only used email to conduct routine daily business. She did not use it "exclusively" and has repeatedly made clear she did not send or receive anything classified. There are other secure methods for government officials to transmit classified information which everyone is aware of including the people who have investigate Benghazi the 7 previous times. Secretary used secure systems for transmitting classified material.
@ 1:23,
DeleteHere's the thing you need to understand.
You can't say "even Eugene Robinson" is against Clinton and try to use that as evidence that this latest manufactured scandal is real. You might just as well say even Rush Limbaugh is against her. It's not very surprising or impressive.
Uninformed conservatives like cicero and David love to reference supposed "liberals" "who mainly makes fun of “liberals.”
This isn't hard. That is exactly where cicero was going with this, but cicero is an idiot.
All I was doing was demonstrating to the idiot that we had Eugene Robinson figured out a long time ago.
cicero recalls the George W. Bush Presidency.
DeleteI always thought cicero was a conservative.
Every day is a learning day.
"I always though cicero was an unpaid troll."
DeleteFTFY
@mm
DeletePlease provide a list of liberal pundits, liberal columnists, liberal reporters, liberal journalists, Democratic Party strategists, and liberal talk show hosts whom you have "figured out" long ago. And then explain what "figured out" is supposed to mean.
"That is exactly where cicero was going with this, but cicero is an idiot."
Deletemm
"Robinson seems to be a familiar press corps “liberal”—the kind who mainly makes fun of “liberals.”
mm.... quoting the great Bob Somerby to explain to cicero why Gene Robinson is no "liberal."
"We liberals are the problem now too! We're lazy and we aren't very smart. We exude a moral squalor. We're lazy and dumb and our morals are bad."
The great Bob Somerby showing how a "real" liberal does it.
It's okay, though mm. I know exactly where you are going with things all the time, too.. Around and around in a circle led by the nose ring of readership that is the Daily Howler.
go pound sand, cicero. Who the hell are you to go giving me orders?
DeleteEugene Robinson joined his fellow empty headed Villagers in their War on Gore. That is documented fact. And in doing so he helped inflict on this country the dumbest person ever to hold the office of POTUS.
Sorry, if you can't use him to say "even Eugene Robinson blah blah blah blah........"
@mm
DeleteYou characterize "Please provide a list" with giving you orders? You certainly have the HRC knack for absolute bullocks.
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit you will settle for nothing less from liberal media types than total obsequiousness to any and all liberal politicians. For someone who denies the existence of the liberal media you certainly have a peculiar set of rules for them.
Is that the "Village" HRC rhapsodized about in her 1996 book?
"Is the 'Village idiot the paid troll Brent Bozell III pays chump change in 2015?"
DeleteFTFY - no charge
@7:16
DeleteSpoken like one of the David Brock Correct The Record recruited "nerd virgins"*
*Paul Begala term for Brock's Super PAC minions
Never a denial, though.
DeleteTick-tock, tick-tock. Still waiting for troll cicero's denial he/she/it is a paid troll.
DeleteScarborough and his crew have been ripping Clinton to shreds with half-truths and blatant misrepresentations day after day with never a single guest on to defend Secretary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteToday was the topper though.
They invited doddering old Bob "Mr. Watergate" Woodward on and he exposed how completely clueless he is concerning the facts and the background. of this email issue.
Woodward was actually surprised that Secretary Clinton had released her emails for the public to see, as she re-stated yesterday in the press conference. As everyone except Woodward already knows, this happened a long time ago. Hillary Clinton never opposed having her State Department emails released to the public, however, Woodward seemed to think she was making news yesterday in her press conference and had been trying to hide them. And he was absolutely delighted that he would have a chance to read them, not realizing that many have already been released to the public in response to FOIA requests.
Mr. Woodward, you fool!, that's what the IC is complaining about. They think some of the ones released have information that should have been retroactively classified.
As I said before, Woodward needs to hang them up and start renting beach umbrellas in OC, MD.
Ageism.
DeleteHa ha.
DeleteAddress the substance and behold how the press is conducting a kangaroo court lynching of the leading Democratic candidate for president.
"Doddering, old" Bob Woodward is age 72. Hillary Clinton would be 73 in the last year of her Presidency. Sanders is 6 years older than Hillary.
DeleteYes, but it appears that Hillary Clinton still has a sharp mind and Bob Woodward seems to be drooling on himself. The other day he compared this to Watergate, not realizing that contrary to Richard Nixon trying to hide the tapes, Hillary Clinton wasn't trying to hide her SD emails. If he's not doddering, he's a lazy fool who has no business shooting his mouth off without knowing the facts. After all he is Executive Editor of a famous and high profile newspaper.
Delete@mm
DeleteThe similarity of Nixon to HRC (who was a lawyer on the Watergate Committee) is the missing 18 minute gap in the tapes. When HRC was asked by FNC Ed Henry did she wipe clean the server she replied, "You mean with a cloth?"
The FBI says it can retrieve emails that HRC, or her minions, did indeed work laboriously to electronically erase.
It would appear Bob Woodward, hero of liberals for his reporting on the Watergate break in and cover up and other assorted GOP scandals, is now getting the reverse David Brock treatment. Brock was the evil incarnate when working for the American Spectator, but became the liberal darling when he created Media Matters.
"Yes, but it appears that Hillary Clinton still has a sharp mind"....mm
Delete"No matter what anybody tries to say, the facts are stubborn. What I did was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost, OK?"...HRC
Indeed that statement indicates her mind has not deteriorated a bit since she said "we were broke and in debt."
It also indicates she hasn't changed much or learned much since the Whitewater affair.
She deleted personal emails, as was her right and consistent with the rules. There is no 18 minute gap.
DeleteClearly you have only seen the movie about Woodward and Bernstein. It greatly inflates their importance in breaking Watergate, probably for dramatic effect. As I recall, most liberals were sad and angry about what Nixon did. I don't recall anyone idolizing the reporters until the movie. Who doesn't idolize Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford? But don't confuse the movies with reality.
The only emails she erased were her personal ones.
DeleteI have no idea why the FBI would be interested in those.
I understand that the clowns in the media circus feel cheated that they can't go through Secretary Clinton's personal emails, but those are the facts. They can't,.
LINK Read that one and the comment that follows if you're interested.
DeleteThough it wasn't apparent at the time, Woodward was largely a tool in a White House vs. FBI turf battle. FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Woodward's Deep Throat, resented that the FBI was losing its exclusivity within the government as the entity that could get away with illegal behavior in matters of counter-political operations.
@mm
DeleteNixon didn't hide the tapes. He refused to turn them over. HRC refused to turn over her server and thumb drive to State or an independent arbiter. In the end, both Nixon and HRC had no choice but to turn over these items minus what they attempted to delate.
@ 2:00
DeleteWhy did Hollywood select Woodward and Bernstein for idolization in bringing down Nixon? Why not a movie about government prosecutors, FBI agents, Alexander Butterfield or John Dean?
If Redford and Hoffman were the idols of Watergate, how is it that those who were inspired by the 1976 movie became investigative reporters and not actors?
You are misrepresenting the facts cicero.
DeleteSecretary Clinton did not "refuse to turn over her server" - nobody ever asked her to turn them over. They asked her for the emails, and she produced them immediately. That was about a year ago if you're counting.
Subsequently, more recently she directed her staff to turn over her private email server to the Department of Justice.
That was done voluntarily, it wasn't under subpoena. They already have all her emails.
That's what the review that's been going on for a year is all about.
If you have any proof those who were inspired by "All the President's Men" became invesitgative reporters, show it. cicero. If not, quit proving what you admitted about your brain being smaller than the appendage that is your hand's best friend.
Deletemm, go somehwere else. You are not doing Clinton any good and "nobody ever asked" you to try.
Delete"Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has sent a letter to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attorney requesting that she turn over her private email server to the State Department's Inspector General or to another neutral third party."
NBC News, March 20, 2015
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/benghazi-panel-head-clinton-turn-over-your-server-n327351
@ 4:09
DeleteTrey Gowdy has/had no standing or authority to demand her server. What you wrote does not contradict what I said.
1) He preserved and turned over to the State Department all her emails a year ago.
2) The physical server was never under subpoena. She voluntarily gave it to the DOJ. The reason being, there is currently a dispute between the State Department and the IC over certain emails and whether information in those emails should be retroactively classified. So out of an abundance of caution, pending the resolution of this turf war between the State Department and the IC, the server is now secured.
This is very simple stuff, no wonder the press if so fucking confused.
This is indeed very simple stuff from a very simple person with the same problem as the person he/she is defending:
Delete"Secretary Clinton did not "refuse to turn over her server" nobody ever asked her to turn them over" mm
So out of an abundance of caution, pending the resolution of this turf war between the you and cicero to prove who has the least fewest facts and IQ points, please quit while you are still chasing your tail.
@4:49,
DeleteOK, I misspoke. What I meant was they were not under subpoena contrary the Nixon tapes and Tricky Dick fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The story is over now. The DOJ has it, and Trey Goudy is not going to get his greasy hands on her personal email.
The comparison to Nixon is ludicrous. She gave all her emails to the State Department a year ago, no argument. It seems like there are certain people who are trying to pretend she was hiding them.
Going back to where I started, when Mr. Bob Woodward said the other day on Scarborough, “Follow the trail here,” Woodward said. “There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to who originated these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton.”
“So, you’ve got a massive amount of data. It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes,” he said. “Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his. Hillary Clinton initially took that position, ‘I’m not turning this over, there’ll be no cooperation…'”
“This has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty,” Woodward concluded.
This was before Secretary Clinton's press conference and before Woodward even knew that she had already given her emails to the State Department and had already given them permission to release them to the public.
"Nobody ever asked for it" Part 2
Delete"The private e-mail server that Clinton used while secretary of state was turned over to the FBI last week from a data center in New Jersey, where it had been stored since 2013 by a small Denver IT firm the Clintons had hired that year to manage their technology needs.
Clinton directed that it be turned over after the FBI requested it as part of an inquiry into whether data that had been stored on the server was secure. Officials have said the probe is preliminary and Clinton is not a target."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/18/hillary-clinton-wont-say-if-her-server-was-wiped/
Trey Gowdy...nobody
FBI...nobody
mm might learn who these somebodies are if Bob Somerby would just lay off the researching the graduation date of bloggers and cover the real press corps on this story.
Somerby doesn't cover news. He muses on how the mainstream media covers news.
DeleteCicero says:
DeleteNixon didn't hide the tapes. He refused to turn them over.
Well of course he hid the tapes, it was a secret taping system. One, for instance, his National Security Advisor, and from September 1973 his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger suspected he had because of the way Nixon, on certain occasions, said something slowly and clearly as if it were a rendition for posterity.
Knowledge of the tapes only became known after the Ervin Committee found out about them from Nixon Chief-of-Staff H. R. Haldeman's assistant Alexander Butterfield. It was in the aftermath of that revelation that Nixon refused to turn them over until an 8 to 0 Supreme Court ruling in the matter.
@CMike
DeleteThe taping system was secret. But the Watergate committee knew Nixon had the tapes in his possession. They were not hidden. FDR was also taping conversations in The White House.
@mm
DeleteState does not require HRC's permission to release her work emails to the public. HRC didn't turn over those 30,000 emails until 18 months after she left State.
You think employer confidentiality requirements end when the employee stops employment. It doesn't work like that.
Delete@6:29 pm,
DeleteThis illustrates one of Somerby's frequent complaints;
"But clarity isn’t the press corps’ game." (Somerby)
*****
ABC News: "The Server Was Handed Over Voluntarily." On August 12, Hillary Clinton's team arranged for the technology company Platte River Networks, which managed her email system previously, to give her private email server to the FBI. ABC News reported that the server "was handed over voluntarily" and was transferred "with no subpoena." From the article:
Barbara Wells, a lawyer for Platte River Networks, the technology company that has managed Clinton's email server since 2013, said the company turned the server over to the FBI Wednesday afternoon at a New Jersey facility.
She said the server was handed over voluntarily, under an agreement between Platte River and Clinton's presidential campaign, with no subpoena. [ABC News, 8/13/15]
*****
It makes no difference to me whether they asked for it or whether she voluntarily gave it to them. The point is she had already turned over the contents of the server a year ago. She's not hiding anything. She has already indicated she thought her emails sent to .gov accounts had been captured and preserved. That is not clear now. However, you should note something Clinton stated in that press conference, that some 1200 of the emails she turned over to the State Department have been reviewed and been determined not to be work related. In other words, she turned over anything she thought could conceivably be considered work related and went above and beyond. Of course this is totally ignored by the media.
And the reason the DOJ wants it is as I've indicated, due to the unresolved dispute between the State Department and the IC, to secure the contents of the server in case any of the emails are determined to have classified information. It is not to retrieve her personal emails, no matter how much our lovely hyperventilating "reporters" wish it to be.
Cicero,
DeleteThe Senate Watergate Committee commenced hearings on May 17, 1973. John Dean began his testimony on June 25, 1973. Butterfield was the first person to reveal to the committee that there was a taping system and did so on July 13, 1973 in a private session before committee staff. Butterfield then stated that was the case in open testimony on July 16, 1973.
@CMike
DeleteIf you bother to read my 3:43PM post I already mentioned Dean and Butterfield as being more responsible for bringing down Nixon than WaPo.
Once the taping system was revealed, the location of the tapes was not in doubt. Ergo, Nixon was not hiding the location of where he kept the tapes, only that he refused to turn them over until SCOTUS ruled against him. The same applies to HRC. She turned the server and thumb drive over after the FBI said the jig is up. Having worked on the Watergate committee, she knew if she did not the next thing would be a court order demanding her to do so.
So, even though turning over emails voluntarily and comprehensively, she gets no credit for her cooperation because she knew the Supreme Court would rule against her. Another great example of the Clinton rules.
Delete@9:15
DeleteThis isn't about debits or credits. If only HRC tuned over the server and thumb drive back in March without the FBI requesting them your appreciation for her cooperation might be convincing.
BTW: You have a funny definition of the meaning of comprehensive.
@6:29 pm,
DeleteHere's another source my friend.
*************
The House committee looking into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, asked Mrs. Clinton earlier this year to turn over her server to a third party so it could determine whether she had deleted emails that might have included government records.
In late March, Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, told the committee that there was no reason to do so because the emails had been deleted from the server. It is unclear whether technical experts could recover any deleted emails.
Mr. McCullough alerted the F.B.I. in July that classified information was on the account. Mrs. Clinton decided to hand over the server and the thumb drive to the authorities after the F.B.I. began investigating the matter.
In a statement on Tuesday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, said that she has “pledged to cooperate with the government’s security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-directs-aides-to-give-email-server-and-thumb-drive-to-the-justice-department.html?_r=0
*******************
I agree with Bob that the media does a poor job clarifying these stories and rather keeps them alive because it's easy and makes for good TV.
DeleteThe news is like a fun house mirror of reality as Stewart told Maddow.
mm - OK, here's a discussion of the substance from a respected former Justice Dept. Prosecutor. You need to listen to the full interview
ReplyDeleteto get his reasons, but here's a partial summary:
Rudy Giuliani appeared on "Hannity" tonight to react to a shocking report by The Daily Mail that revealed the IT company Hillary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a Denver loft apartment with its servers housed in the bathroom closet.
Giuliani said that Clinton should have been under investigation two months ago if the Justice Department was acting honorably and apolitically.
He said that the moment she admitted to destroying or deleting any personal or government records, she should have immediately been subpoenaed.
"She got a political break nobody else would get," Giuliani stated.
He added that Clinton should get a criminal lawyer, as she has violated multiple statutes, including those relating to conflict of interest and obstruction of justice.
"This woman should be the subject of a criminal investigation. She should be in front of a grand jury."
Rudy Giuliani? Surely you jest.
DeleteShe isn't the subject of a criminal investigation, and so far Rudy and the rest of the lynch mob hasn't pointed to a single crime.
@mm
DeleteThe FBI only engages in criminal investigations. Whom do you suppose would be charged with at least a misdemeanor if they find TOP SECRET information, marked or not, on her server or thumb drive? Hint: they are not going to charge an inanimate object like a server.
It is not true that the FBI only investigates crime. It is also charged with protecting national security. iThat is the more likely authority under which they are investigating, not Clinton, but whether info sent to her should be retroactively classified instead of publicly released. One of the emails is a discussion of a published article. The material was not classified when sent to Clinton but may need to be classified now. Clinton will not be charged with anything, so you can stop your slavering.
DeleteEvery time I hear Rudy Giuliani outraged over something I think of two words:
DeleteMonsignor Placa
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385
@ 1:02
DeleteYour lack of knowledge about criminal law and governmental immunity is stunning - but not surprising. Not surprising because having even rudimentary knowledge in these areas is way above your pay grade.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ not mm
DeleteWhy would the FBI need HRC's server and thumb drive if their investigation was only concerned with the 30,000 emails HRC gave up to State? Did you imagine HRC was going to release to the public the other 30,000 emails she claimed were private?
Their investigation is concerned with the security of the devices, not their content.
Delete@ 7:27
DeleteTry again.
"FBI Begins Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/fbi-optimistic-it-can-recover-some-data-clinton-server-n411976
You seriously believe the FBI wants to read Hillary Clinton's personal emails?
Delete@7:51
DeleteYou seriously believe the FBI believes HRC went to the trouble to wipe yoga classes and Chelsea wedding plans off her server and thumb drive? But you do believe the reason the FBI confiscated HRC's server and thumb drive is because it contains only personal emails. The mind boggles.
When my employer bought me a new computer, I turned in the old one and IT wiped it, after transferring files. It is routine.
DeleteNo one has said the emails on that server were only personal.
@9:11
DeleteYou had your server professionally wiped? Who paid for that?
HRC was not employed by a private concern. A private citizen can not file a FOIA request for your emails, but they can for the emails HRC produced as Secretary of State.
If the emails on the server were not private, why would she put in the effort to wipe it clean? Her server was not going to be put back in serve at Foggy Bottom considering it was never issued by Foggy Bottom.
mm – I don’t watch the TV news. Perhaps you can tell us if they’re covering the Chain of Custody problem? Or, are they giving her a break by not focusing on it?
ReplyDeleteDepartment of State officials refused to identify to a congressional committee the “chain of custody” – the complete list of people who had access to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s investigation.
The request was made last spring by the House Select Committee on Benghazi probing the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.
The chain of custody evidence is essential to determining if Clinton or people close to her violated federal laws on handling of classified materials….
The “chain of custody” issue is important as federal officials have confirmed that at least 300 or more emails on Clinton’s server contained highly sensitive classified material and at least two were stamped “Top Secret,” the highest classification level within the intelligence community.
The Top Secret designation means information disclosed in that category “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security,” according to Executive Order 13526, a December 2009 national security order signed by President Barack Obama.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/17/hillarymail-chain-of-custody-request-may-lead-to-indictments/#ixzz3jHVsvjvB
David,
DeleteThe real story here is that someone in the IC is not following
Executive Order 13526. In the preamble, this EO is described as:
Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.
***
Is the Intelligence Community (IC) acting consistently with the principles of this Executive Order? We have many reasons to doubt it. The Hillary Clinton e-mail brouhaha is a great illustration of this. Richard Lempert, a fellow at Brookings and a former DHS official, writes:
[S]ecurity professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification. Not only may information be classified when its revelation would pose no serious security threat, but there have allegedly been instances where agencies classified information for impermissible reasons such as to cover up crimes or avoid embarrassing the agency. Early in his first term President Obama issued Executive Order 13526 designed to tilt the balance toward greater disclosure by emphasizing the need for an unequivocal and strong security or foreign policy nexus before information is classified (“If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Sec, 1.1 (4)(b) ) If, however, my experience within one agency was typical, some at the operational level may not have fully bought-in to the President’s slant.[My emphasis]
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2015/8/15/115148/495/lawrelated/Is-the-Intelligence-Community-Violating-EO-13526-on-Classification-
Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.
DeleteContent created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
What a bunch of hogwash, something David in Cal is quite persistent in producing, persistence seeming to be his only admirable quality.
DeleteCourt-rendered judgments and jury verdicts that are based on tainted, unreliable, or compromised evidence would undermine the integrity of the entire legal system if such outcomes became commonplace. One way in which the law tries to ensure the integrity of evidence is by requiring proof of the chain of custody by the party who is seeking to introduce a particular piece of evidence.
Since there are no causes of action pending for either the BENGHAZI!!!! sham or the current GOP bamboozle, there is no party who is seeking to produce evidence at trial because there is no basis for trial. In a criminal context it would be the prosecution that would have the chain-of-custody burden, so that rules out Clinton having the burden. The notion that Clinton is getting a break from the press for not focusing on her chain-of-custody "problem" is sheer wingnut hackery.
Do the world a favor: go sit in a room and play with your abacus and stop bothering everyone with your mendacious slop.
Hillary's defense is going to come down to having sent or received "nothing that was marked 'classified.'" Whoever removed the classified markings will take the fall, and everyone will be reminded once again how tedious a Clinton presidency can be, with weekly "technically, there is no violation" arguments from the Clinton stooges.
ReplyDeleteGet your facts straight.
DeleteThere never were classified markings to remove.
If you have any evidence that there were please show it.
It was not classified. They are talking about retroactively classifying it. That means there were no markings. Had there been, she wouldn't have used email to send or receive it.
Delete@mm
DeleteIf you have evidence that HRC only wiped her server clean of personal emails please show it?
Who says she "wiped" anything?
DeleteFact-free paid clown demands evidence fro others.
Delete@ 4:58
DeleteThe FBI.
As near as I can tell, the Clinton campaign stated that the server, held securely by a third party, had been wiped after transferring the contents to a different server. It was not wiped in anticipation of turning the server over to anyone. The FBI has stated that it may be able to recover the contents despite the wiping.
Delete@7:25
DeleteOdd then that when FNC's ED Henry asked HRC did she wipe her sever clean she replied, "You mean with a cloth?" Why the obfuscation and lame attempt at humor if what you say has already been admitted to by the Clinton campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rix4-LjPLIw
Haha, now she's the "passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified"! Just torture that language enough, you'll get your confession!
DeleteA joke is not obfuscation. It is an attempt to stay pleasant in the face of annoying questioning.
DeleteIt was a sign of her supreme confidence that she continued to take multiple questions from this total partisan hack, Ed "FOXY" Henry.
DeleteOf course that will go unrecognized by the media who wish to characterize the press conference in a negative light.
@7:55
DeleteDid you wipe the server clean is an annoying question? Answering if she is for or against Keystone Pipeline surely must be the equivalent of root canal surgery for HRC.
@mm
DeleteContinued to take? HRC threw her hands up walked away in a huff rather than answer a legitimate and obvious question. Imagine the CNN soft ball questions lobbed at her when they host the Democratic candidates debate. Oh wait.....They are in on the "right wing conspiracy", yes?
It's a non-issue unrelated to her campaign that she has already issued statements about. She doesn't have to indulge right wing reporters any longer than she considers necessary. You conservatives are not going to vote for her and nothing she says to Fox will be reported fairly.
Delete@ 9:07
DeleteThat's the same FNC that hosted the GOP debate where even the ultra left wing MSNBC credited the panel of Kelly, Wallace and Baier as asking tough questions.
HRC doesn't have to answer any questions. Why would she spoil her record of refusing to answer just because Henry was the alone in pursuing an answer. In other words, doing his job as a reporter.
"Odd then that when FNC's ED Henry asked HRC did she wipe her sever clean she replied, "You mean with a cloth?""
DeleteAnd then she said, "No, I don't know what that means digitally". I wouldn't expect her to know, "wipe the server" is a technical term that IT professionals would know. If you asked me what it means to wipe a server I couldn't tell you and I've been using computers and emails since the 90's.
I didn't get to watch the whole news conference, but in the few minutes of replays shown over and over and over again, she fielded multiple questions from Ed "FOX" Henry.
"HRC threw her hands up walked away in a huff rather than answer a legitimate and obvious question."
You are an inveterate liar, cicero. I watched the end of that news conference and you are completely misrepresenting what happened. She ended the questioning and was already walking away when some idiot reporter yelled out at her, "Is this email issue going to continue to hurt your campaign" (paraphrasing) at which point she turned around, threw up her hands and replied, "You're the only ones that ask me about it". You've gotta admit, it was a pretty dumb question.
An enormous amount of campaign coverage is about polls, the horse race, who is ahead. The only thing that really matters, as far as that goes, is who is going to win - and that is one thing that we all find out, after the election takes place. Why not direct the bulk of the coverage to what each candidate proposes, what would happen if the proposals actually were adopted, who would gain and who would lose in that event, and how practical or realistic the proposals are? I assume that until relatively recently, there were no polls like they have today, maybe no polls at all. Apparently, the system functioned, people voted (albeit not women or Blacks) without knowing the candidates' polling numbers. And these polls probably affect the outcome of the elections - if you think your candidate is a shoo-in, or has no chance, you are less likely to actually vote, and if the poll is wrong, the outcome could be affected.
ReplyDelete"Why not direct the bulk of the coverage to what each candidate proposes, what would happen if the proposals actually were adopted, who would gain and who would lose in that event, and how practical or realistic the proposals are?"
DeleteBecause the oligarchs who run and control the propaganda machine of corporate entities has no interest informing the public of "what would happen if the proposals actually were adopted, who would gain and who would lose in that event".
The media's job is to confuse, misinform, and distract the public. The polls and the horse race mentality are distractions.
Or you can just blame it on lazy liberals.
Well, AC/MA, Bob did a whole post on media coverage of campaigns, but led it with a bit of controvery on another topic. Since you and 2:32 are the only ones interested in discussing what was Somerby's major point, perhaps that tells you why the media doesn't focus on what you and Bob want them to. Only a tiny handful are interested even here in Bobworld.
DeleteWith all due respect neither the PBS coverage of the Iowa state fair nor Bob Somerby's critique of it are as intellecually nourishing as a pork chop on a stick.
ReplyDelete"Crackers please"
DeleteSorry. No crackers. But....
Delete"Check out our top three finalists for our 2015 New Fair Food Contest!
Corn in a Cup: Available in two varieties. "The Iowan," which includes a cup of corn niblets, pork sausage, cheddar cheese, mayo, butter, lime and spicy magic dust. "The Mexican" is a blend of corn niblets, pork chorizo, coyote cheese, butter, mayo, lime, and spicy magic dust. (available at The Corn Stand south of the Service Center)
Toasted Coconut Caramel Cluster: a blend coconut, pretzel pieces, and caramel dipped in chocolate and served on a stick. (available at Dipped in Chocolate at the outer perimeter of the Livestock Pavilion)
Ultimate Bacon Brisket Bomb: smoked pure ground brisket, diced jalapenos, a few onions, infused with a pepper cheese, all wrapped in bacon, and served with a sweet and spicy chili glaze. (available at The Rib Shack located at the north side of Walnut Square) - Winner of 2015 New Fair Food Contest
We are betting Trump supporters stayed away from the Corn in a Cup named "The Mexican."
“No matter what anybody tries to say, the facts are stubborn. What I did was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost, OK?”
ReplyDeleteWe learn once again why Hillary Rodham Clinton was able to turn an insurmountable lead in 2008 into defeat and may do so again.
We also learn why Bob Somerby always complains about what would be happening "in a rational world."
Neither seem to want to understand they don't get to define what is first and foremost nor what is rational in a world that is both real and does not revolve around them.
She lost tye nomination, not the primary vote, because Obama figured out how to game the caucuses. What does that have to do with anything?
Delete@3:56,
DeleteWhy won't she just confess so they can burn her at the stake and be done with it once and for all?
@mm
DeleteHRC's jail inspired orange pant suit is made of Nomex®.
@ 7:08
Delete/crickets/
Tomorrow Bob promises another jump off the PBS Newshour Bridge instead of those statistics on Black Lives Matter from the WaPo promised repeatedly back in July.
ReplyDeleteA mordantly chuckling invisible thumb puppet wondered: “Do you think Somerbyl has figured these data out by now?”
Your shtick has become tiresome. Can't you think up some new way to deride Somerby?
Deleteanon 4:50, I still haven't figured out why you devote your precious and limited time in frequenting this site which you seem to loathe so much. I would guess there is no rational explanation for this behavior.
DeleteWe have a winner! AC/MA wins the coveted Matt in the Crown "Why are you here?" Repetition Award.
DeleteTake a buck out of petty cash and go crazy, AC.
doapy, if question is ever answered I'll stop asking it.
Delete@AC/MA
DeleteB.S. welcomes dissent on his blog unlike dailykos, Media Matters, Crooks & Liars, etc where any commentary contrary to the liberal orthodoxy is strictly verboten.
Very good question, AC/MA, And one you ask frequently without getting an answer you like.
DeleteWhy do people, including myself, still read this blog? And comment? I also can think of no rational explanation for this behavior.
There must be some benefit to watching a washed up comic make an ass out of himself as a self-appointed progressive turned neo-con media watchdog.
Anonymous at 6:46: Excellent Question!
Delete"Your shtick has become tiresome. Can't you think up some new way to deride Somerby?"
I can think up some new ways to deride Somerby. But why try a new shtick when the one repeatedly used by the master comic who owns the club keeps getting such mordant chuckles out of his invisible analysts and disappearing readers with the bridge suicide reference?
I count at least fourteen times since Bob has used that very funny, funny line since September 22, 2010. The line keeps getting funnier and funnier.
http://www.tylerclementi.org/
Irish guy, I appreciate your "Irish lives matter" schtick, but it's not that I don't get an answer I like, it's that I don't get an answer at all. I admit to asking the Q several times, as have others; it's only natural to wonder about such bizarre, annoying behavior. And if there must be some benefit as you suggest, what in the world could it be?
DeleteGetting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??
ReplyDeleteI'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.
Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??
ReplyDeleteI'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.