When the shoe is on the other foot, Hillary says “Ouch!”
Hillary Clinton is hopping mad at the NY Times‘ coverage of the story of an investigation by two inspectors general into whether Clinton’s SOS emails had been “mishandled.” The Times had said the investigation was criminal in nature, and implied Hillary was the target. Neither thing turns out to have been true.
Here are some excerpts from an email Clinton sent to the Times which it did not publish, and which her campaign is releasing [my responses and suggested additions are in brackets]:
We remain perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors have made [we thought the Times only did that to Republicans, and can’t understand why they’re doing it to us now]…
The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world [and I expected it to be nearly as sycophantic to me as it has been to my predecessor, Barack Obama] and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major [Democratic] candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing ‘criminal’ from the headline and text of the story…
I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future. [I have a lot of power, and I’ll be using it to make sure you stay in line in the future.]
Like Hillary, I’m a bit “perplexed” by the Times role in this. My only conclusion is that they see her as a flawed candidate and would like someone else in there. Or maybe Dean Baquet is just completely incompetent. Or maybe both.
By the way, the investigation in question, although not criminal at this point and not focused on Clinton, could conceivably become so. And although the Times was incorrect in the facts it reported, their response is that they were relying on information an official in the Justice Department had given them.
I remained preplexed by how the Paper of Record continues to cover for, and grovel before, the Democrat party.
They only want what’s best for the Dems and Hillary! clearly isn’t what they think is best.
AMartel, for the Dems, and Obama, but if the DOJ is investigating, O knows, and O OKed.
“they were relying on information an official in the Justice Department had given them”
That pretty much says it all. This White House has approved attacking Hillary.
Remember that Barry was just talking about how he’s win a third term if it wasn’t for that silly amendment to the Constitution, and we all know that that silly Constitution is a living document that must be reinterpreted to change with the times, don’t we?
My wife and I had a “discussion”. I tried to show her that Hillary’s statement that no emails were classified at the time she sent them was a self-serving non sequitur.
One could point out that in all likelihood, given the comments from the intelligence community on the sensitivity of the information, the contents were not officially classified only because she bypassed the system that would normally have processed and classified them.
I don’t know if her argument would stand as a defense in a court of law. If the information she emailed was derived from classified sources, or was information that she in her official capacity would know merited classification, then it may not.
At any rate, her defense should be met with the scornful guffaws that it deserves.
The DNC knows she’s dead meat but can’t push the eject button so they are having surrogates do it. Kind of like Iran and the “Violent Extremism” they instigate. They’ll do a Nancy Kerrigan to her one knee and one cankle at a time until she criees “Personal Health Crisis” and bails seeking the sympathy of the world.
Obama and the Clintons really hate each others’ guts. So it’s not surprising that he’d sabotage her in his usual spiteful way. With Jon “Stewart” going to the What House to get his talking points and targets du jour, and given the Times’s Leftism on stilts, it would seem that they’re doing likewise.
Bill seems to have decided that he can’t save his “beard,” and apparently isn’t nuts about her anyway (she’s served her purpose, as far as he’s concerned, so he can cut the old cow loose), so that would explain his silence. That, and the fact that he knows the Powers That Be have something else in mind.