Part 4—Fruit of the smartest person: Jessica Devers, 25, is a target of the series of scams we describe as our "national discourse."
According to the New York Times, Devers is one of the nation's "educated voters." In one of his typically puzzling person-in-the-street reports, Trip Gabriel quotes Devers about Comey the God's thoughts on the email matter:
GABRIEL (7/8/16): “I read an article that global terror threats would increase if Donald Trump becomes president, and that’s scary,” said Jessica Devers, 25, a paralegal from Wallingford, who voted for Mr. Trump in the Pennsylvania primary but does not plan to in the fall.For a review of the Robert Graves novel Claudius the God, you can just click here.
While Ms. Devers said she thought Mrs. Clinton was more trustworthy, she was nevertheless appalled by the findings of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday that the former secretary of state was “extremely careless” in her handling of 110 classified emails. “She took a huge security risk for this country,” Ms. Devers said. “Part of me feels like she’s a criminal.”
Devers believes that Hillary Clinton "took a huge security risk for the country." For that reason, “Part of me feels like she’s a criminal," Devers is quoted as saying in today's New York Times.
Romans and countrymen, is it true? Did the aforementioned Hillary Clinton take a huge security risk for the country?
Based on what we've learned about this case, we'd have to say that she didn't. We plan to explain that judgment next week.
For starters, read Fred Kaplan's report. Devers, a target of the scam, seems to think that Clinton did take that huge security risk.
If Devers voted for Candidate Trump, she probably doesn't watch the Maddow Show on a regular basis. Let's hope she didn't watch it last night, where guest host Steve Kornacki seemed to be compiling an audition tape for a possible job at Fox.
According to the corporate employers who reportedly pay her $7 million per year, Maddow is "arguably the smartest person on TV." We regard her as one of the most corrupted. In part, we base that on the way she has avoided the issue of Clinton's emails over these many long months.
Maddow has always been sold to us as Our Own Rhodes Scholar. Because we liberals have purchased that scam, we may not notice the way she avoids the challenging and difficult topics as she serves our tribal porridge each and every night.
Maddow pleasured us for four nights of last week, then left for the type of vacation corporate TV stars take. Last night, Steve Kornacki once again served in her place.
Let's hope that educated voters like Devers weren't watching Kornacki, who has been reinvented in the past year as his channel's excitable boy.
Last night, the silly children who script Maddow's show offered two short segments about Comey's emergency session with the House committee. In the first of these short segmnts, the silly children simply assembled a series of snippets from the hearing.
Incredibly, the silly children chose to include the gong-show snippet shown below. The snippet featured gong-show statements by Republican chairman Jason Chaffetz. As you can see, the smartest person's hapless guest host offered no correction or comment concerning Chaffetz's ridiculous clwoning:
KORNACKI (7/7/16): The FBI director there, testifying for nearly five hours today. His answers apparently not satisfactory to the committee's Republicans. The chairman, who we just saw there, Jason Chaffetz from Utah, upping the ante by asking if the FBI investigated whether Clinton lied under oath, not to the FBI, but when she testified before Congress.To watch that nonsense, click here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHAFFETZ: Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
COMEY: Not to the FBI, not in a case we were working.
CHAFFETZ: Did you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically, and she said, quote, "There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received," end quote.
COMEY: I don't remember that reviewing that particular testimony, I'm aware of that being said, though.
CHAFFETZ: Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?
COMEY: Not to my knowledge, I don't think there`s been a referral from Congress.
CHAFFETZ: Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?
COMEY: Sure do.
CHAFFETZ: You`ll have one. You'll have one in the next few hours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KORNACKI: And tonight, Chaffetz' spokesperson confirming he's submitting that referral to the FBI, saying, quote, "We are working on it, it will hopefully go out today." And we're also learning tonight that the State Department is re-opening its internal investigation into possibly mishandling of classified information by Clinton.
And don't forget, the House Judiciary Committee is set to question Attorney General Loretta Lynch on this matter next week. So this is, at least politically, far from over.
Good God! Despite that grossly misleading snippet, it became clear in the past few days that Clinton actually didn't send or receive any emails which were marked classified. This is an important new fact which emerged from the chaos/confusion.
Hillary Clinton actually didn't send or receive such emails! But if Devers watched the Maddow Show this week, she never heard that fact.
In two nights of bungled pseudo-reporting, the smartest person's hapless replacement made no attempt to explain this highly relevant fact. And the hapless people who script Maddow's program left such facts out of the mix.
The passage we've posted represents the end of Kornacki's first segment about the hearing. Given the actual facts which emerged this week, that presentation of Chaffetz's lament was simply astounding.
Kornacki's second short segment was worse. In that segment, Kornacki conducted an interview with Democratic congressman Gerald Connolly, a member of the committee which interviewed Comey.
Kornacki was astounding in this second segment. After an initial question about the "political theater," he issued a string of prosecutorial questions aimed at tagging Clinton as, what else, a liar.
Is Kornacki seeking a job at Fox? His repetitive string of prosecutorial questions even included the following groaner, as he kept seeking a way to throw Clinton under the bus:
KORNACKI: I take your point. Let me ask you this way, though.The question is highly edited—and it's just massively foolish.
At one point today, one of the themes I think of the questioning from Republicans here of the FBI director was if there's a double standard.
And at one point, Comey, the FBI director, said, "Look, if one of my agents did what Hillary Clinton did, that agent would not be prosecuted." But then he added that agent would face consequences.
He suggested they could be termination, could be the loss of security clearance. Do you think, short of prosecution, do you think there should be some consequence here for Hillary Clinton?
To state the obvious, Clinton has already received massive "consequences" stemming from her handling of emails. But in the comment to which Kornacki referred, Comey also stated the obvious—an FBI agent would not receive "consequences" for some such behavior if he had already left government service.
Kornacki omitted that part of Comey's rather obvious statement. Except as an attempt to condemn his target, his question made little sense.
What kinds of additional "consequences" does Kornacki think Clinton should receive? Short of defeat by Trump, it's hard to imagine what they could be, and he didn't say.
His question made no apparent sense—and in another of his prosecutorial questions, he made a flat-out factual error about a statement he attributed to Clinton. But so it goes when guest hosts are scripted by Maddow's staff. In recent weeks, the acknowledged error rate has been spiking on this increasingly ridiculous program.
When we started this series of reports, we intended to focus on the ridiculous work Maddow did last week.
We started with her ridiculous clowning about PPP's ridiculous question about meteors hitting the earth. We planned to hopscotch through the rest of last week's nonsense, ending with last Wednesday's "Special Report" about the situation in Flint.
Maddow's treatment of that "special report" seemed remarkably cynical. She promoted the "special report" for two nights, fluffing her reputation as someone who deeply cares.
When the "special report" was finally delivered, it turned out to be "special" only in its emptiness and its apparent fraudulence.
The "special report" only ran about twelve minutes. We can't give you an accurate number because the report was such a throw-away nothingburger that it wasn't even posted at the Maddow site.
For Maddow, twelve minutes is clearing her throat. After many weeks of silence, there was little information in the "special report" and little sign of any "reporting." She still doesn't interview actual experts about the situation in Flint. Instead, she asks viewers to accept her own politicized ramblings.
Many questions can be asked about ongoing events in Flint. But it's abundantly clear that, aside from a way to fluff herself, Maddow and her incompetent staff show few signs of caring.
Our nation's culture is currently dying from Stupid. This fact becomes more clear with each passing week.
When we liberals watch Maddow's show, The Stupid is all around us. But Rachel Maddow's corporate handlers keep pimping her as the smartest person, and we liberals are too trusting, and too dumb, to see that this corporate promotional claim is just the latest scam.
Kornacki's string of questions: Was Steve Kornacki auditioning for Fox last night? For the second straight night, he made no attempt to explain the important facts which have emerged from this week's declarations by Comey the God.
Instead, Kornacki issued a string of prosecutorial questions which seemed to have been scripted at Fox. In the process, he made at least one flat-out factual error, though in that case, he seemed to be working from material prepared by staff.
The Maddow Show is especially dumb when it comes to the politics of the Clinton "scandal" era. They're very dumb and very clueless. This dumbness persistently shows.
Presumably, so does their professional cowardice. Good jobs at good pay!
People are dead all over the world because people like Maddow's chortling staffers have behaved in precisely this way for the past twenty-five years. When you watch the Maddow Show, you're riding with Silly and Stupid.
To review Kornacki's questions, click here. Eventually, The One True Liberal Channel may post last night's transcript. (Look out for the factual error!)
Kornacki's interview of Connolly was like something you'd see at Fox. Quite correctly, you'd say to yourself that it was unbalanced, unfair.
Gretchen Carlson is finished at Fox. Is Kornacki seeking her spot?