Best of all, it's in Hillaryland: Maureen Dowd has started smelling a scandal. Best of all, it’s in Hillaryland!
What happens when this aroma wafts? Dowd starts sifting pure crap. This morning, she devotes all her skills and powers to a literary exegesis of Hillary Clinton’s recent tweets.
Dowd sees “focus-grouping” and “calculation” everywhere in these tweets. She’s reminded of Clinton’s “homogenized memoir,” which has been out for ten years.
That’s what Maureen Dowd sees in these tweets. In Dowd, we see the reigning queen of the world’s dumbest elite.
That’s the silly part of the column. But uh-oh! Dowd has also begun to smell a scandal in Hillaryland! Best of all, prostitutes are said to be involved:
DOWD (6/12/13): As with Benghazi, Hillary is distancing herself from the latest kerfuffle roiling her former workplace. CBS News’s John Miller secured a State Department draft memo that he said suggested that several internal investigations were “manipulated, influenced, or simply called off” by department big shots. The allegations in the memo included a report of a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards, another about members of Hillary’s former diplomatic security detail having an “endemic” issue with hiring “prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries,” and a third involving an “underground drug ring” operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and providing drugs to State Department security contractors.That’s very unclear. But news of the scandal has started to waft about on cable. We were struck by David Corn’s work with Lawrence last night.
Miller said “the most striking instance” in which State Department agents told the inspector general that they were ordered to stop investigating was the case of a U.S. ambassador who was prone to eluding his protective detail to cavort with prostitutes in a public park. Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman, denied that senior officials at the State Department ignored serious violations of the law, calling it “preposterous.”
Did Hillary Clinton's State Department put the kibosh on some internal probe? That is certainly possible. After all, everything is.
But as we watched David chatting with Lawrence, we were struck by the suspicions which didn’t bark. We also remembered the sickening smell of our recent political history.
To watch this full segment, click here.
Note the way these lovable pups are already using the term “whistle-blower” to describe the unnamed complaining party. Note the way Lawrence is already straining to say that the story of this alleged whistle-blower “already has an echo of truth:”
CORN (6/11/13): A couple of key points. One is, if you look at all the recent “scandals,” and I’m using scare quotes out there, sometimes you have to wait to get a little more information, as we have seen with Benghazi and IRS, before you really know whether something is indeed wrong, and who it affects or if it goes to the White House, or goes to the top floor of the State Department. So it may take a little while to sort that out.Even though they “hate to say it,” these pups are already coming down on the side of pseudo-scandal. Here’s how:
You know, number two, though— There are allegations here that involve some very high-ranking State Department officials, including one who is extremely close to Hillary Clinton. And the allegation is that this person intervened and helped kill one of these investigations. Now, if that’s true, then that gets you up to the seventh floor and to Hillary Clinton and something she may have to answer to—answer for. So therefore, this is the type of thing that as you look at it in the beginning, it could become a problem for Hillary Clinton.
O’DONNELL: And what do you look for in the next stages of developments of the stories inside this so-called scandal structure that we have here?
CORN: Well, I think in looking at this particular story, you have to sort of, you know, I assume there are going to be reporters now who cover the State Department and will talk to State Department sources who may have something to say about the whistle-blower that could bolster the case, that might undermine the case. There may be good reasons why the Inspector General took out some of this stuff. You never know. There are a lot of people who have beefs because their work is not fully appreciated, and sometimes for the right reasons. So, I think—
No doubt Darrell Issa is chomping at the bit. There may be interviews and congressional hearings in the future where some of this information will begin to come out. But there are like eight or so cases here that are all rather, you know, dramatic, and that—
O’DONNELL: The whistle-blower, the whistle-blower was one of the investigators who worked on some of this material. And some of it already has an echo of truth to it in the sense that we had that story about the Secret Service agents in South America using prostitutes. And so when this comes after that and you’re talking about security personnel for the State Department possibly using prostitutes, that element doesn’t suddenly sound like some bad plot point in a TV show.
CORN: No. And I hate to say this, but the accusation is that the IG report in the State Department was basically tanked. They took things out that should have been there. Which seems to call for, dare I say it, another IG report. I mean, these are very serious allegations and you can’t really trust Darrell Issa to do this, you know, in a bipartisan way. So I’m hoping that somebody, maybe this is a job for a Senate committee to take a look at this.
O’DONNELL: David Corn, thank you for joining us tonight.
The boys don't seem to know who their “whistle-blower” is. If they watched Gregory Hicks testify in the House last month, they should know that the tribal lunacy in which we wallow may have spread inside the State Department by now.
The boys never extended this warning. Instead, they kept calling the complaining party a “whistle-blower,” then found ways to say that his presentation “already has an echo of truth to it.”
It may be that the State Department has done something wrong. It may be that another crackpot right-wing hack is making another bogus complaint.
The boys never articulated the latter possibility. Because our liberal channel refuses to fight, these fellows never will.
At this point, we offer a warning:
Like the rest of his East Coast Irish Catholic peers, Lawrence O’Donnell spent the Clinton-Gore years chasing the Clintons and Gore all around. Like the rest of his peers, he was then, and remains today, a bit of a Hillary-hater. (Dowd is part of this group.)
How many liberals understand a key fact? Two of MSNBC’s five prime-time hosts were inveterate haters of the last Democratic president! Right through 2008, Matthews was one of the very worst of the Hillary-haters. Was Lawrence far behind?
We’ve never been super-high on Clinton as a future hopeful for precisely this type of reason. Last night, you saw the basic scripts flipping back toward the long-running “dragon lady” norms. Most incredibly, you saw this act being performed on The One True Liberal Channel!
Please understand: Lawrence worked hard to destroy your interests under Clinton and Gore. David, looking to move on up, kept his trap shut as this happened.
Has the State Department done something wrong? We have no idea. But when we watched Hicks testify last month, we had a fairly good sense of what we seemed to be seeing.
Did Lawrence and David understand? If so, they’re playing it safe.
Who else would ever accept this: Again, please be clear on one basic point:
Of MSNBC’s five prime-time hosts, two were inveterate Clinton-Gore haters! Back then, they worked to destroy your interests. Today, we revere them as our fiery liberal heroes.
We modern liberals are some piece of work! What other group would ever accept a corporate arrangement like that?