Supplemental: Page and Fineman get it right!


About the way they’re getting it wrong:
Last night, in Hardball’s opening segment, Howard Fineman addressed his fellow pundits with a hint of disgust in his voice.

What had Howard so annoyed? After a joke about Candidate Trump, he discussed the way the major news orgs were discussing no one but Candidate Trump.

Howard almost seemed disgusted by the focus on Trump. He offered a pair of examples from Tuesday, the day before:
FINEMAN (7/22/15): Chris, he is the sort of weird orange-haired Maypole—


FINEMAN: —around which everybody is dancing at this point. And an example of it is yesterday, [speaking of] the thing with the cell phone. John Kasich, a serious, substantive guy, governor of Ohio—

MATTHEWS: Actually a good guy.

FINEMAN: —head of the Budget Committee, you know, the real deal as a potential president, announces his campaign. Does anybody pay much attention? No. The number one story on CBS Radio News, at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the most strait-laced news broadcast that there is, recent winner of the Edward R. Murrow Award—

MATTHEWS: Is Keith McBee still doing that?

FINEMAN: I don’t know. But who do they— Who do they talk about? What presidential candidate do they talk about at 4:00 o’clock?


FINEMAN: Donald Trump! No mention of Kasich!
“I agree,” Matthews replied. “I turn on XM radio coming in this morning. I flick all the stations, Fox, CNN, us, everything. They’re all on the same topic. He’s dominating.”

To watch the full segment, click here.

To appearances, Fineman was peeved with CBS Radio News. He’d caught them discussing Candidate Trump and ignoring Candidate Kasich!

As Fineman spoke, of course, he and the rest of the Hardball gang were discussing Candidate Trump! They discussed “the weird orange-haired Maypole” for the whole opening segment.

On the previous evening, Tuesday night, Hardball played it like CBS Radio. The whole first segment was Candidate Trump. Only then did “good guy” Kasich’s announcement get discussed.

Fineman almost seemed to suggest that CBS hadn’t discussed Kasich at all. We don’t know of any source for CBS Radio transcripts, so we can’t check that claim.

We aren’t even saying that Hardball is wrong to be spending so much time on Candidate Trump. That said, a fair amount of the discussion was utterly silly last night. A few minutes before Fineman spoke, Susan Page rolled back the curtain on the values of her class:
MATTHEWS: Yesterday, Donald Trump gave out Senator Lindsey Graham’s personal cell number, as we saw, in retaliation for Graham calling him a jackass. And today, Senator Graham tried to outdo that stunt by teaming up with the conservative news site IJ Review. They put out this video entitled, “How to destroy your cell phone with Lindsey Graham.”

Let’s watch. [Laughing]


MATTHEWS: Who came up with using The Four Seasons as the music there? I got to tell you, that was— Is that pathetic or is that clever? He stayed up all night producing this thing.

PAGE: In what other circumstances—

If Lindsey Graham gave a speech about the Iran nuclear deal, would we be talking about it? No! He got himself—

You know, he’s at 2 percent in the polls. But he got himself into the story.
Candidate Graham attracted some coverage by making a silly videotape. With perfect accuracy, Page defined the guild’s basic focus:

“If Lindsey Graham gave a speech about the Iran nuclear deal, would we be talking about it? No!”

We’ve explained what follows before:

Why do our presidential campaigns start so amazingly early? Various interests are involved, including New Hampshire motel owners. But from the standpoint of the press corps, a presidential campaign gives the children a chance to discuss a raft of personalities for the better part of two years.

Page described the culture quite well. The children would jump off the Wilson Bridge before they’d discuss a speech on Iran. When such topics must be discussed, they tend to get discussed in terms of what politician is getting insulted.

(Frequently, it’s Obama.)

Candidate Trump makes this press culture simpler to perform. It’s personal insults all the way down, with no attempt to pretend that anything else is involved.

Candidate Trump is clownish and faux. Truthfully, though, so is almost everyone else in the contemporary political and journalistic worlds.

Candidate Trump does faux straight. His appeal to voters seems fairly obvious. In a world where everyone is faux, he doesn’t bother affecting a pretense or a disguise.

By the way, we’re not sure Matthews is keeping up. The Keith McBee to whom he seems to have referred died in 1993.

He may have meant his question to Fineman as another joke. Politics is nothing but fun when Candidate Trump is involved.

Shorter Page: Note to presidential candidates:

Don’t discover a cure for cancer with Candidate Trump in the race!


  1. Trump gave Clinton Foundation,$100,000,

    Trump donated to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and Rahm Emanuel, a former aide to President Obama who received $50,000 from Trump during his recent run to become Chicago’s mayor.

    HRC attended Trump’s 2005 wedding to current wife Melania Knauss at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida

    1. Donald Trump, Clinton contributor and friend, had 4% in Republican Presidential Polls.

      Donald Trump, announcing he would run for President as a Republican, called Mexican immigrants rapists.

      Donald Trump surged to 24% in Republican polls.

      Republicans are a broadminded, forgiving lot.

    2. @ 4:46

      Let's examine what POTUS candidate Obama said about Mexicans. Libs didn't figure Obama needed forgiveness. when they voted for him, twice.

      “[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,”

      “And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

      “And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments,” Obama wrote. “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

      Senator Obama 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”

    3. cicero is getting warmed up. Hey, cicero, did you know Robert Byrd was a deciding vote for Obamacare?

    4. "cicero is half-baked."

      FTFY - you're welcome.

    5. @ 6:09

      FLOTUS has a lot of trouble with spuds regardless of their preparation.

    6. W. Va. Klan Alumni Assoc.July 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM

      cicero is still back a couple of threads debating Robert Byrd and POTUS. He will join the regularly sheduled programming as paste up repeats of his comments become available.

    7. So which is sadder, that cicero believes the nonsense he posts here or that he expects anyone else to?

    8. @ 6:40

      Spoken like one of the David Brock Correct The Record recruited "nerd virgins"*

      *Paul Begala term for Brock's Super PAC minions

    9. WVaKKKAA, cicero can step faster than that other favorite son of your state, Jesco White. Thinks like him too.

    10. Like Trump, cicero sucks all of the oxygen out of the room.
      Fortunately there aren't many left in here and most are mouth breathers with mental problems.

    11. cicero don't know spuds from butternut squadoosh soup.

      Runny eggs and drano does that to you.

    12. @ 6:46

      "Fortunately there aren't many left in here and most are mouth breathers with mental problems"

      Excellent self diagnosis.

    13. cicero translation: I know you are but what am I? And no youtube cite to be found.

  2. PPP is out with a new poll.

    "Clinton is in pretty good shape when it comes to potential general election match ups as well. She leads all of the potential Republican candidates by anywhere from 3 to 13 points, comparable to a month ago when her advantages over them ranged from 3 to 7 points. The Republican who comes closest to Clinton is Rand Paul, who trails by 3 at 45/42. Also coming close are Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker all of whom trail by an identical 5 point margin at 46/41."

    The sad news for progressives is Sanders trails all these candidates.
    The good news is he does lead Trump, who despite comments about McCain, still leads the Republican pack. Republicans are a gorgiving lot. They are willing to overlook contributions and social friendship with the Clintons and disparagement of John McCain's war service. Compared to his strong stance on all those Mexican rapists, what's not to forgive, I guess.

  3. Looks like JEB! has joined forces with the War on Hillary folks at the NY Times and the Hillary Jihadists at the WaPo and wants to help give us President Walker!

    "The phase-out brigade is back! But now instead of George W. Bush wanting to phase out Social Security, it's Jeb Bush wanting to phase out Medicare.

    The former Florida governor opined Wednesday on the future of Medicare, a program he said "we need to figure out a way to phase out."

    1. @5:34

      NYT is at war with HRC? That would be news to NYT editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal .

      Susan Lehman podcast host:
      "How do you think this crazy pack of Republican candidates and the level of their conversation has made the race for Hillary?”

      Andrew Rosenthal
      “I think she’s basically ignoring it, which is extremely intelligent,. And this is going to sound rather strange coming from a journalist, but she’s also ignoring the press which I don’t think is such a terrible idea.”

    2. And this somehow negates the front page hit pieces they have run attacking her?


    4. I cannot believe cicero did not respond to @ 8:28. Allow me to do so for him:

      Nothing in the front page pieces on Clinton has even mentioned Robert Byrd was once a ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan.

    5. @ 10:40

      Clinton Defends Byrd's KKK Ties: "He Was Trying To Get Elected

    6. I assume you are aware that Truman was also a member of the KKK?

    7. @ 11:46

      Not to mention POTUS Woodrow Wilson who was responsible for Washington D.C. becoming Jim Crow territory.

    8. Byrd graduated from Mark Twain High School and everyone knows Twain used the "n-word." But then so did POTUS and FLOTUS did not wash his mouth out with non-fat soap.

  4. “Sen. McCain dedicated his life to serving our country, and in my humble opinion the sacrifices made by all ethical service members are heroic — putting it all on the line to defend freedom IS heroic — and Donald Trump is a hero in another arena"

    S. Palin

  5. "By the way, we’re not sure Matthews is keeping up. The Keith McBee to whom he seems to have referred died in 1993."

    Which is why, despite miniscule ratings on CNBC, Chris Matthews was much more influential in the late 90's than he is today.

    Howard Fineman, OTOH, probably went to McBee's funeral but lost all memory of it when his hair color was changed for the 1,000'th time. Which was sometime after Matthews almost got somebody killed but before Rachel Maddow kissed his ascot to get her current job.

  6. Today Huffington post has a headline "Where Wall Street is piling its cash for 2016". Next to it is a picture of Hillary Clinton. When you read the article, it explains Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are the major recipients. The picture suggests Wall Street loves Hillary, but the facts show they are donating to the frontrunners on both sides. Another example of the campaign Huffpo is waging against Hillary. Subtle but consistent.

    1. The commenter fails to mention that Hillary is the leading recipient of funds from these sources. Bush has received only 82 cents on the dollar compared to what Clinton has gotten working the same donors. To include Rubio as a "major" recipient in highly misleading. He has gotten only 24 cents on the dollar compared to Clinton Overall he has gotten only 13 cents for every dollar earned by the top two, despite campaigning for the same job. Perhaps this is because he does not have the same close connections to Wall Street through family ties to past occupants of the White House.

      Commenters have frequently complained about the quality of photos used by HuffPo in Clinton coverage. I thought this picture was a striking photo quite favorable to the former SOS/Sen/FLOTUS. The picture shows a dynamic leader who is in fact the clear leader in raising campaign money from this leading sector of our economy.

      How can you claim this is war on Clinton by showing her to be doing well? Unless you think raising money is a negative thing. Or you think financial service employees are somehow evil. Clinton has to raise money to compete. She and her husband left public service broke and in debt in 2000.

    2. They are donating in proportion to their respective odds of winning. In 2008, they donated more to Obama than Clinton. By showing only Hillary's photo (until after the jump) they imply she is uniquely bought off. Another nastygram from Arianna.

    3. So you are saying there is something negative about her taking Wall Street money?

      If they donate based on odds of winning, then I suppose Hillary Clinton was way out in front in donations in 2007 as well.

      You say they "imply she is uniquely bought off." You imply she has been collectively purchased based on some sort of
      trader's formula.

    4. The Times is running a photo almost iddntical to the one in Huffington Post of Hillary Clinton with a new article.

      The headline is a little worse:

      Times Headline:

      Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account

    5. It's funny. The NY Times seems to have forgotten something in the report. The crime. I'll be goddamned if I can find a single line in this "report" that specifies what the theoretical crime is.

      Oh, never mind. JEB(!)

    6. JEB! is currently a poor third and choking in the Donald's dust.

      Assuming Trump implodes, you think his whacko followers are going to go to the guy who brought one of those Mexicans back across the border as his wife?

    7. that's not the point. Whatever JEB(!)'s chances are doesn't alter the fact that the NY Times is 100% in the tank for him.

    8. I thought the Institute of Blog Commentary Fact Findery had stated the degree of Times JEBBERY! was only between 75-90%.

      It is not clear, due to fuzzy prose if they are in the tank or merely in the bag. But you could be right. Anything is possible.

      That said, I was not trying to responding to your point, which I took to be that the Times article was factually flawed not that it was biased. Alas, I was wrong about your priorities.

      In my view, you did not respond to my question any more than I responded to your point, which may have been intentional on your part as well. This happens again, again, and again, as may have been pointed out before at times.

    9. This is what I was responding to.

      July 24, 2015 at 9:52 AM
      JEB! is currently a poor third and choking in the Donald's dust.

      Assuming Trump implodes, you think his whacko followers are going to go to the guy who brought one of those Mexicans back across the border as his wife?

      I didn't find that to be on point with what I had written previously. Perhaps it wasn't meant as a reply to my earlier post?

    10. As they have said for a long time: It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

      That and "follow the money." And how does Wall Street being partially in the Ready for Hillary tank sit with you, mm?

    11. Well, when you're Hillary Clinton and have to contend with full time teams of op-research spreading bullshit, as well as with Karl Rove's tax-exempt SUPER PAC generating negative ads against you specifically, I would say I want her to have all the ammunition she needs to fight back. I repeat, I trust her and I really like the policy positions she has been putting out, particularly her focus of voter suppression and the way she kicked JEB(!) in the balls for his voter rolls bullshit actions he took as GUV.

    12. “The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral,” it read.

    13. @mm
      Rove's Crossroads GPS is a 501 (C) 4 it is permitted to engage in political spending but is required to report what it spends,

      Media Matters, Daivd Brock's organization defending HRC form any criticism is a 501 (C) 3 which states the organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests,

      "David Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC"

      By Kenneth P. Vogel
      2/9/15 2:42 PM EDT
      Updated 2/9/15 8:01 PM EDT

      "David Brock on Monday abruptly resigned from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, revealing rifts that threaten the big-money juggernaut being built to support Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign.

      In a resignation letter obtained by POLITICO, Brock, a close Clinton ally, accused Priorities officials of planting “an orchestrated political hit job” against his own pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters."

  7. Looks like Hillary will be hoping Donald Trump keeps getting all the attention.

    1. "It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them."

      Translation: nothing was classified when she sent or received them, but we're going to scream about it as long as possible in our campaign to "take her down"

    2. Our Excuses, Ourselves: Part 1

      "Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation...."

      Translation: Requests by Inspectors General for Criminal Investigation guarantees ratcheted up call GOP calls for both DOJ investigation and Special Prosecutor. If former occurs and clears Clinton, it is Obama administration cover-up. If the latter occurs it will last past November, 2016.

      Regardless, continued press coverage and responses by Clinton and Clinton campaign will do nothing to improve current net negatives for Clinton on "trust" issue or allow attention to be focused on issues of "everyday" Americans.

      Tomorrow: Part 2: "What part of convenience don't you understand, stupid?"

    3. Translation: 9:48 has no fucking clue what the "crime" might be, but is totally on board with the ratfucking going on.

      They insist her emails are made public. Then retroactively somebody decides to classify parts of an email. Suddenly, a couple IG's decide she might have committed a crime.

      The irony is the only email accounts that were hacked and compromised were the State Departments and the WH accounts.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. @mm

      Irony? The irony is that you actually believe that when the news that HRC's private server was hacked is three months old.

      "Fmr. CIA Head: Hillary’s Email Server Was Compromised By Foreign Intel Services"

      "Former acting CIA director Michael Morell said he believes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Homebrew email server was indeed compromised by foreign intelligence services."

    6. mm, implies I am somewhere I am not: "on board with the (rodent sexual activity described in present tense verbal form)"

      As a netizen of at least as long standing as he, I further note his implication that I am not reality based by saying I have "no (intercourse based ) clue what the "crime" might be." Earlier he stated his point was not that there was no crime specified but that the Times was "100% in the tank" for JEB(!)

      These implications seem to impugn my inclination to support Mrs. Clinton for President against the current field, flawed though I find her. I recognize that by bringing up obvious problems Mrs. Clinton faces due to decisions she made about how to conduct her business as Secretary of State to maximize her all important personal convenience,
      I will be accused of aiding Republicans. Perhaps I am just further proof of the great Bob Somerby's guess that some of Mrs. Clinton's supporters are her biggest problem.

      I am, however, a liberal. I will not lie sleeping silent in the woods just to please the tribe. That is what caused this crisis in the first place.

    7. You seem to be forgetting that Clinton handled her emails exactly the way Colin Powell did. You are also suggesting she did something inappropriate when her desire to protect her emails via her own server in the face of hacking of government files probably made her files more, not less secure. That the government subsequently decided emails should be handled differently, after she was no longer Secretary of State, is not her fault.

      If you are a liberal, why are you ignoring the vendetta against Clinton, of which this ruckus is merely the latest iteration? There is no issue here except the desire to take down the Democratic frontrunner in advance of the primaries. Anyone who quotes "sleeping in the woods" or "tribe" is not a liberal but obviously a troll.

      This blog started to see this kind of garbage when the right decided to attack Clinton "from the left" by pretending that progressives were unhappy with her. You can identify these attacks because they use the same talking points as the right but pretend to come from liberals. The language isn't quite right, and there are "tells." For example, calling Hillary Clinton "Mrs. Clinton" as if that were respectful. And words like "all important convenience" as if that were selfish (those greedy self-centered Clintons) instead of a way to be more productive. You aren't fooling anyone.

    8. This is what I mean by irony.
      The WH and State Department email server's were hacked. There is no evidence that Clinton's server was hacked. That is the one Hillary shared with the former President of the United States of America.

      Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say.

    9. @mm

      The CIA says HRC's private sever was hacked. Live with it. Willie contradicted HRC when he said he only used the server one time to send one email.

      "Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that her unreleased emails included many personal exchanges with her husband, but that contradicts Bill Clinton’s recent claim that he has only sent two emails in his entire life."

    10. cicero leaves out a pertinent detail from Mr. Morrell's comment on Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show while promoting his new book:

      "I think that foreign intelligence services, um, the good ones, the good ones, um have everything that's on any unclassified network, um that the government uses, whether its a private server or a public one. They're that good."

      Of course that does not excuse mm either.

    11. You're full of shit cicero. This is the problem when arguing with wingnuts. They are unable to distinguish fact from fanciful speculation by a "former CIA Deputy Director" trying to sell books.

      The State and WH accounts were indisputably hacked. That is a fact as reported by every news agency.

      Are you still unclear as to what is ironic about that?

    12. @ 11:54

      The federal government has to report to the public about being hacked. Since HRC decided to use a private server, she believes she doesn't have to report to the public being hacked. The damn thing is the Chinese have all those 30,000 emails HRC deleted. If we subtract the two private emails between herself and Willie, that leaves 29, 998 emails Foggy Bottom related emails. Good thing the Chinese, being inscrutable, are not into blackmail.

    13. You're full of shit cicero.

      You're full of shit cicero.

      You're full of shit cicero.

      You're full of shit cicero.

      You're full of shit cicero.

      You're full of shit cicero.


    14. @mm

      "A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name. Unlike the State Department’s domain, Clinton’s is currently registered with a private domain registrar, Network Solutions, as a simple Whois search reveals. The domain (and thus its registrar) was certainly known to at least one hacker: The notorious celebrity hacker Guccifer first revealed it in 2013 when he spilled the emails of Clinton associate Sydney Blumenthal."

    15. Keep twisting and squirming cicero. Still no evidence her account was compromised in any way, unlike the actual State and WH accounts.

    16. SAY WHAT?

      Report: “Officials seek criminal probe of Hillary Clinton e-mail account.”
      Washington Post Fred Barbash July 24 at 1:05 PM
      “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information through her private e-mail account, according to the New York Times.
      The Times, citing unnamed “senior government officials,” said Thursday night that the requests had come from the inspectors general for the State Department and intelligence agencies. They concluded that Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails,” according to the Times.

      “Probe sought into possible ‘classified’ details in Clinton private e-mails”
      Washington Post Sari Horwitz, Anne Gearan and Karen DeYoung July 24 at 12:56 PM
      “The Justice Department said Friday it has been asked to investigate the “potential compromise of classified information” in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.
      A statement issued by the Department said it had received a “referral” on the matter, although it did not say whom it had come from.
      “It is not a criminal referral,” the statement said.
      Justice officials also said that no decision has yet been made about whether to open an investigation.
      The statement came after media reports — initially confirmed to The Washington Post by Justice Department officials — that a criminal investigation was being considered. The New York Times first reported Thursday that the inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence agencies had asked for a criminal investigation related to Clinton’s e-mail account.”

      Well, WAPO, which is it?

    17. from Digby,

      Guess what? According to CNN:

      The account of the investigation changed overnight. The Times initially reported that the inspectors general sought a criminal inquiry into Clinton's handling of possible classified material with her private email while working as secretary of state. The story now says the investigation would simply look at whether sensitive information was mishandled -- but not necessarily by Clinton.

      The request for the Justice Department investigation comes after a June 29 memo from the inspectors general that said Clinton's private account held "hundreds of potentially classified emails," The Times reported.

      A Democratic presidential contender for 2016, Clinton has insisted that she never handled classified information on her private account.

      "Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials," said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. "As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted."

      The New York Times report said it was "not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them."

      Once again, the NY Times is caught fucking up the facts in order to get a huge negative headline on Hillary Clinton.

      Bob is so right, this newspaper is a rag.

    18. irony:

      5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

      6. the incongruity of this.

      It is ironic that the Clinton's server was more secure than the State Department's and WH server.

    19. digby can't be trusted anymore.

    20. CNN headline (not provided by digby or mm)

      "Official: Clinton emails included classified information"

    21. It turns out it wasn't a criminal referral at all, actually. Could the NY Times be any more fucked up? They even had the asshole reporter rush out to spend time with the morning Squint who probably spent at least half of his 3 hours this morning talking about the "criminal" investigation. And by the way, Eugene Robinson was right there on cue to twist the knife in Hillary's back just a little.

      A Department of Justice official confirmed to TIME Friday morning that there had been a “criminal referral.” Later that same day, the official sent an updated statement: “The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral,” it read.

    22. Yeah, bullshit artist, here's the meat of the CNN story.
      It isn't even about her actions. They have been crawling all over the state department to release her emails, then retroactively someone decides one of the ones made public should have been classified.

      A follow-up memo from both the State Department and intelligence community inspectors general to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy on July 17 said they had received confirmation that "several of the emails contained classified (Intelligence Community) information, though they were not marked as classified. At least one of the emails has been released to the public" by the State Department. Officials were additionally concerned that possible classified material would be posted in future releases of Clinton's emails.

    23. @mm
      How would you know if HRC's private server was hacked? Who would tell you this? Do you think HRC would admit it? Do you imagine that she would even know if the server were hacked? That you give HRC's server super powers of inhackability is a true sign of a Clintonista.

    24. @ 5:22

      CIA Deputy Chief Mike Morrell, who held that position while HRC was at Foggy Bottom and who accompanied Susan Rice to a Congressional Committee investigation, has said on the record that HRC's private server was hacked. What is this straw man argument about proving a negative?

      But thank you for admitting you have zero knowledge about HRC's private server, hacking, computers, flash drives, email accounts, etc.

    25. @mm

      You can't even admit HRC lies when there is video evidence of her lying.

      Here is HRC emphatically claiming she used only ONE device while at Foggy Bottom.

      Here is HRC admitting she used an iPod and a Blackberry while at Foggy Bottom.

    26. Memory confusion isn't lying.

    27. cicero,

      I'll take that as an apology and admission that I was right and you have no fucking evidence that former President Bill Clinton's email server was ever hacked. You were just taking out of your ass as usual. You are a shifty cowardly little wingnut shit. When you get cornered on a LIE you change the subject. That's your pattern. Fuck off.

    28. @mm

      HRC has zero credibility. If she ever claimed that her private server has never been hacked she is either lying or wouldn't even know if it were hacked. We already know the head of the CIA, a personal friend of HRC, stated the server was hacked. We also know from a celebrity hacker that was compromised and we know that HRC's software is way out of date.

      The only way you know about the Foggy Bottom and White House hacking is the government is obliged to disseminate instances of security breeches. If they didn't admit it, you would say their emails have never been hacked. That is the standard you use with HRC. After all the compulsive lying HRC has done over the last 30 years, you will still attempt to kick the football Lucy (HRC) is holding.

    29. OK, cicero, have it your way. Her server was hacked. Great. This must come as welcome news to you and the rest of the wing nut Clinton voyeurs who've been howling at the moon for months because they can't read her private emails.

      Well, according to you, they can. Tell us, where are these Clinton emails from the hacked server and how come the NY Times has published any yet?

    30. @mm

      Where has any news outlet published the hacked emails of the White House and Foggy Bottom?

      Nobody is interested in reading HRC's emails about her mother's funeral or her daughter's wedding plans. You are merely repeating a Media Matters/Correct The Record red herring. Their talking points only nutritional value is restricted to Omega III.

  8. Why settle for a re-run of Clinton v. Bush? We need another round of Gore v. Bush. It may be out best shot.

  9. Anybody want to bet on first topic out of Somerby's server today?

    Autopsy Proves Press/Black Hustlers Liars!

    NY Times Out to Get Beleaguered War on Clinton Victim Again!

    1. One of the fun things about reading this blog is that you generally don't know what he will talk about next (beyond his main themes).

    2. The War on Gore means never having a topic that can't be tied to our sorry cultural collapse.