The Clinton email spin

Not “malicious” sayeth the administration to the biased press, who repeats.

I said before, inasmuch as you have some (willfully) obtuse pundits who ‘don’t understand what the email controversy is about…”  Looking at you Kevin Drum….  It’s that the Clinton’s keep a shadow staff of loyalists on payroll at the Clinton Foundation.  IE, Sidney Blumenthal, who is loathed such that the Pres. wouldn’t allow Hillary to hire Sidney straight up.  Anyway, Hillary seeks the advice of this shadow staff, Blumenthal and others, farms out some research work to them.  So the mishandling of state secrets was done in accommodation to that function, so Hillary could use her shadow staff at the Clinton Foundation.

Yeah, not “malicious”.  But certainly criminally malfeasant.  Patraeus is a very decent analogy.  He wasn’t “malicious” with his email, but he got charged.


2 thoughts on “The Clinton email spin

  1. pm1956

    Here is another Washington Post article on this that directly addresses the Petraeus comparison:

    “That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.”

    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      I am not prepared to buy into this rebuttal. Waldman has the same type of faux obtuseness that I bag on Kevin Drum for. They are almost exactly the same type of writer.

      Thing is:

      I think I reject the premise that she had to knowingly intend to break classification rules to be charged with a crime for which the DOJ usually gets a fairly easy conviction. Lack of intent is generally not very exculpatory these days anyway here in ham sandwich nation.

      I’ve read other places that the mere act of transferring documents from the one secured
      network to put them on Hillary’s private network was a felonious security violation.

      I’ve read other places that Blumenthal was doing analysis work for Clinton as a Clinton foundation employee without a govt security clearance. Which means he was receiving documents as a person who shouldn’t have. This had to have been intentional actually, so they are not exculpated there by a ‘lack of intent’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s