Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

At the expense of pedantry, here’s how a serious newspaper covers an important story: “Tom Brady hearing transcript details judge’s comments to NFL, NFLPA,” reads the Boston Globe headline.

Datelined New York, the August 21 article states that Judge Richard M. Berman “put immense pressure on the NFL.” It quotes him telling the league its punishment of the Patriots quarterback in “Deflategate” constitutes a “quantum leap” from the evidence.

The byline establishes that Globe reporters were there in the courtroom. Indeed, the online version contains a link to the full hearing transcript.

(As an aside, this column’s readers can’t say nobody warned them about the shaky evidence and shoddy reasoning behind this overblown affair.)

Now then: Let’s move to the apparently far less significant question of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s fabled email account. I say that because a recent New York Times account of a different federal judge’s statement supposedly about that account bears few indicators of real journalism.

Indeed, if one were of a low and suspicious nature regarding the Times’ historically inept Washington bureau, one might suspect yet another example of the “Clinton Rules” — that is, a shaky allegation unsupported by facts.

Like a recent wildly inaccurate Times article on the same topic, the story carried Michael Schmidt’s byline. The headline of Schmidt’s original July 23 piece was “Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton’s Use of Email.”

Except, oops, there was no criminal investigation, nor was Hillary Clinton directly involved in what amounted to an argument between the CIA and State Department over retroactively classifying information — to wit, how many Clinton emails the State Department planned to release needed to be withheld from public scrutiny under today’s circumstances.

After being forced to retract virtually the entire article in a piecemeal process its own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, characterized as “to put it mildly, a mess,” Times editors pinned the blame on anonymous sources they wouldn’t identify. They vowed to be more cautious.

“Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome,” Sullivan wrote “than publishing an unfair story and damaging the Times’ reputation for accuracy.”

Soon afterward, the public editor said she agreed with a reader who argued that the newspaper needed to make “a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media.”

Fast forward to another Schmidt opus that moved on the wire at 3:36 AM on the night of August 21. I read it in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette under the headline: “Judge: Clinton Didn’t Heed Email Policies.”

Datelined “Washington,” the story claimed thatU.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan “said of Hillary Clinton’s email use that ‘we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy,’ according to two people who attended the hearing.”

Two anonymous sources, that is.

The article quoted Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a right-wing group suing the State Department for access to Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s private emails, chastising Hillary. It didn’t stipulate how the former Secretary, not a party to the lawsuit, came to be mentioned. Schmidt added that Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton — although a glance at Wikipedia shows that he was initially a Reagan protégé later promoted by George H.W. Bush.

It’s not supposed to matter.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the hard copy New York Times later that morning. Schmidt’s story underwent significant editorial changes. Two anonymous sources were replaced by no sources. “A federal judge on Thursday said,” the story began. The Judicial Watch guy disappeared. Judge Sullivan was no longer a Clinton appointee.

More significantly, the “Washington” dateline was replaced by no dateline.

Basically, the Times told us the judge said something, but contrary to Journalism 101, didn’t say how they knew it or why he said it. Pretending that a reporter attended the hearing when he didn’t, however, would be far worse. Hence, I suspect, the disappearing dateline.

We’re to take it on faith.

Sorry, no sale. As Huckleberry Finn said, “I been there before.”

Actually, “the employee” would be an odd way for a federal judge to refer to the Secretary of State — a cabinet appointee and fourth in line for the presidency — not to mention that everybody from The Wall Street Journal, to Newsweek, CNN and, yes, The New York Times have reported that Clinton’s private email setup was consistent with State Department rules.

So I’m thinking former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) got it right on Fox News Sunday. “Judge Sullivan’s extraneous remark was about something completely different,” she said “and it was about something going on with somebody else, an employee.”

So it looks like another big hurry, another big screwup.

If the presidential race is as important as the Super Bowl, maybe the Times should show us the transcript.

Photo: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses union members as she tours the Carpenters International Training Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 18, 2015. REUTERS/David Becker

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • John Murchison

    What happened to the New York Times? Weren’t they great once?

    • FireBaron

      They still are, unless it comes to covering Hillary or President Obama. Then they feel they must compete with the NY Post and sink to the lowest common denominator, proferring innuendo, half-truths and just short of outright lies, such as to be found coming from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

  • greenlantern1

    The party, of Rosemary Woods, is accusing Hillary of destruction of evidence?
    Remember the Watergate Tape Gap?
    The party, of Henry Kissinger, is calling Hillary our worst Secretary of State?
    Remember the Plumbers?
    Ever hear of Pastor [?] Terry Jones?
    He was already tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the murders at Benghazi!
    Why was his e-mail NEVER asked for?

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    It’s kind of sad that the NY Times has stooped so low as to become yellow journalism. Once again, principles and ethics have been seriously compromised thanks to money influence. A billionaire doesn’t give a crap about money. That’s already been conquered. Now, billionaires are after the ultimate power and dream of every rich man’s life: Owning the United States of America.

    They’ve closed ranks around just about every possible US industry, university and government contract to the point where government today resembles a corporate subsidiary. Why not close in on the media too? After all, the media is hugely influentical. Take away “free” press, replace it with a right wing billionaire’s ideology and all the great unwashed masses see and hear is that these billionaires want us to see and hear. Their way. Works for them. After all, wasn’t that what McCarthyism was all about? Forcing their will on others and when that caused suicides from mass harassment, the next item on their agenda was takeover of the press for subtle indoctrination.

    This is the reason, no matter who else runs in the 2016 election, it’s HILLARY the billionaires are after. Why? To prove that no woman can be president. Keeping a screwlike rein on Hillary is purposeful to dig dig dig dig until they find her flaw.

    That’s like trying to breathe ten miles beneath the sea. But, these idiots have to prove how powerful they are, don’t they?

  • johninPCFL

    And the damage by the lie is already done. Even Joe Scarborough was screaming about it the same morning, but when the lie is exposed? Well, no mention on his morning show. Maybe he saved his contrition for his 10th ranked radio show, where it wouldn’t be noticed.

    Hillary histrionics have taken over, displacing rational discourse.

  • If the New York Times would devote as much time accurately reflecting what is happening in society rather than relying on hyperbole, innuendo, half-credible sources, and an insatiable thirst to acquire money, they wouldn’t waste our time and destroy so many trees just to “beat a dead horse” over a contrived email conspiracy.
    This country’s obsession with poisoning America via its sickening partisan-political posturing, and other odious attitudes, is a strong reason why the world is in travail
    and spiraling downwards.

    • johninPCFL

      Yeah, but this way they sell a ton of papers touting the lie, then sell a ton more with the mea culpa. For them (and Fox for that matter), accuracy and truth are completely secondary. It’s all about selling the ads and pulped trees.

  • itsfun

    She brought her problems onto herself.

    • DAK27

      Yeah, right. Clinton could of sold cupcakes at the local Wal Mart and still been criticized. It doesn’t matter what she does, what she has done or what she hasn’t done, the Media lies about it. I no longer trust anything the Media says about her and even if I watched her with my own eyes do something nasty and hateful I’d not believe a story written about it later.

      • itsfun

        She is one with different stories about Benghazi. Different stories about how many electronic devices she owns. Different stories about classified documents on her private email server. You have made up your mind about her and just refuse to believe what she has done and will vote for her even if she is in prison.

        • DAK27

          Whatever you say, Hoss. Don’t let the fact that there have been how many hearings into Benghazi and still nothing. Don’t let the fact that there has been a political witch hunt about Hillary since Bill was President and still nothing. Bush and Cheney can’t travel outside the country, but the Clintons can and that right there is enough for me to choose which to believe. The ones who LIED the country into a war and the ones you BELIEVE now?

          • itsfun

            This campaign is not about Bush and/or Cheney. Its been shown that Bush used the best intelligence he had when he went to and got approval from Congress. If you don’t believe there were WMD used then you aren’t believing a whole lot of evidence.
            Hillary did bring the problems onto herself. As SOS she did break policy and rules and maybe the law. She has given different versions of issues. How can anyone trust her to tell the truth. She has lied to America about the issues surrounding her, how can you expect a leader of another nations to believe anything she says. Once a candidate is a proven liar, how can anyone trust that candidate again?

          • DAK27

            Then by your reasoning, there isn’t a Republican running that can become President, right? As for the lies told by Hillary, like I said, the ones reporting those “lies” are people I don’t trust so what am I supposed to do? Why don’t you tell me.

          • itsfun

            When any candidate tells lies to me about national security or Americans being killed, I will not support them either. I am sure you have seen press conferences by Hillary where she has different stories of what was and was not on here server, then if the documents were classified or not. She said she only had personal documents on the server. Documents about our national security or any national issue are not personal. Just find and watch and listen to her different stories, the videos are all over the internet.

          • DAK27

            Sounds easy, huh? However, I noticed you didn’t answer my other questions.
            Which Republican hasn’t told lies?
            Do you believe those who lied us into a war? (As to the WMD, I was there in Iraq, so please don’t lecture me about “watching the news” and I don’t trust the media as I’ve said before.)

          • itsfun

            I said any candidate that lies to us, won’t get my support. That goes for both parties. I said I believe Bush used the best intelligence he had when both Houses in Congress approved going to Iraq. You don’t have to trust the news, just watch the videos of people talking to the media.

          • DAK27

            By your own reasoning, you cannot vote for any Republican and you won’t vote for Hillary… so I guess you will not be voting in 2016, correct?

          • itsfun

            I’ll be voting. What has Trump lied about? What has the good doctor lied about? What have any of them lied about?

          • DAK27

            If I were to list all the lies told by the Republicans you mentioned, I’d be here all night and you’d not read them anyway. You’ve got your mind made up Hillary is a “criminal” and cannot be trusted and nothing I can say will ever change that, which is fine. I don’t mind discussions but I refuse to argue like some do on here. That is certainly pointless and a waste of time. Let us just say that, while I don’t particularly like Hillary, I dislike the way she is treated in the media much more and like I’ve said, if a Republican says it, and by extension if the media reports that a Republican said it, then I automatically call bullshit and don’t believe it and you know why as well as I do. The Republicans have done nothing but lie since Obama was sworn in and it is now a case of too many lies about too many things for too long for me to believe anything they say. The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind…

          • itsfun

            You are right, I feel about Hillary and Obama as you do about all Republicans. I don’t hate all Democrats though. I voted for a Democrat lady for the Senate and a Democrat for my States Governor. I also have a lot of respect for Joe Biden as a man. I feel that character and honesty are extremely important for a President. However we did find something to agree on. We agree to disagree. Have a good night and tomorrow.

          • DAK27

            You too. Let me add one other thing here that I appreciate a civil conversation where we discuss ideas and even though we may not agree, we can at least agree to disagree in an adult manner. It is refreshing and thanks for not calling names, good day to you as well.

          • johninPCFL

            She never said she had only personal documents on the server. She said that the state department documents on her server were not classified, and all of those reviewed so far were not. Even the ones now being called “sensitive” (after the fact) were sent by career state department workers from unclassified terminals (which, BTW means that those emails were all archived as well. Unless Clinton sent emails to herself, a search of all state dept emails using “clinton” as a keyword would return all of them no matter who sent or received them. Too bad Congressman Gowdy is too lazy to do that. Or maybe he just has another agenda.)

            Since she followed the protocols for emails first established by Albright and followed by Powell, then by Rice, the objections raised so far are just political gamesmanship. The current policy touted by Gowdy, et. al. was put in place a year and a half after Clinton left the SoS post. Powell and Rice used AOL and Google for their SoS email accounts and erased all of their messages. Why aren’t they in jail? Oh, yeah. They aren’t named “clinton”.

          • itsfun

            Powell and Rice did NOT have their own private server. They used secured government servers for all of their email. By having her own private personal server she did NOT follow any established protocol. If email did not go through a government server, it is NOT archived on a government server. As SOS one of her responsibilities is ensuring no classified documents are left unprotected. As SOS with top secret clearance she has been thoroughly trained in how to treat all documents. It also has been said by people in the know that the documents were marked as classified. The General was prosecuted and his career ruined by having confidential documents on his desk. She has allowed our nations confidential, and top secret documents to be compromised. There can be no excuse for a high ranking governmental official to allow that to happen. In this case she caused it to happen.

          • johninPCFL

            Yeah, they used public servers when not in the office. They used AOL and Google. Her emails went TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and were thus properly archived. She didn’t send or receive classified emails.

          • itsfun

            If she didn’t send or receive classified email, why did the DOJ find classified emails in the sample of only 40 they took from the 30,000? If her server only had personal stuff and yoga stuff, why did she have it scrubbed clean?

          • johninPCFL

            It wasn’t “scrubbed clean” any more than deleting anything from a Windows box is “scrubbing”. Did Rice and Powell “scrub” the AOL and Google servers “clean” by deleting their “classified” emails and terminating their accounts?

            The DOJ has found nothing since they have no authority to mark anything as classified.

          • itsfun

            Rice and Powell did not have their own servers and had no authority on the server to scrub the hard drive. Hillary did have that authority. Deleting and scrubbing are 2 different actions. Deleting a document just allows the server to use that space again to write another document in that disk space. The document is still on the disk until another document is written in the same space. Scrubbing a document is actually writing something in the area of the deleted document. Classified documents were found on Hillary’s in the documents she turned over.

          • johninPCFL

            Yes, they used AOL and Google. A MUCH safer option, right? Then they deleted ALL of their emails. Nothing at all suspicious about that, right? So, I’ll understand your position when you also call for them to be arrested for treason as well.

            Since nobody has issued a report about what they’ve not found on the server, why do you continually lie about the “scrubbing”?

          • itsfun

            Hillary said she wiped the server. How am I telling a lie.

          • johninPCFL

            Because that’s NOT what she said, and yet you continue to repeat it even after you know it’s false. Telling a false story is a lie (just in case you missed that in first grade.) What she said was that she deleted personal emails: “Clinton said she deleted the personal emails — “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations,” she said — sometime in the fall of 2014 and sometime after the State Department asked on Oct. 28 for Clinton’s work-related correspondence.” The “wiping the server” lie was invented and screamed about on right-wing blogs until CNN picked up the “story” (read:lie) and began spouting the lie to a broader audience.

            BTW, according to your definition of “scrubbing”, anytime a drive is defragmented, compacted, the server software does “garbage collection”, or the drive capacity limit causes wrapping, it is “scrubbing” the drive. Since all reasonable ISPs routinely defragment, compact, and perform garbage collection, by YOUR definition that means that Powell and Rice are also guilty of “scrubbing a drive” and are therefore guilty of treason.

            So, again, why do you continually lie about the “scrubbing”? Why have you not called for Powell and Rice to be indicted? Oh, yeah. They’re not named “clinton”.

          • itsfun

            No body is lying. You don’t even know what scrubbing or wiping a drive is. Powell and Rice did not own private servers. They would not have had any power to scrub a drive. All they could do is delete. Hillary owned her server. She would have authority to scrub or wipe drives. I don’t know what Powell or Rice did that was possibility criminal. if they did something criminal they should be indicted. Again, if Hillary had nothing but personal stuff on her private server, why did she remove over 40,000 files before turning it over to the FBI? If the FBI folks cannot retrieve the documents, the server was scrubbed or wiped clean, or what ever you want to call it. De fragmenting, compacting, and removing garbage have nothing to do with scrubbing, wiping clean, or deleting files.

          • johninPCFL

            Yes, I’m quite familiar with scrubbing. Re-writing information over existing data is scrubbing, and is routine when defragmenting a drive. If you don’t know about it I suggest you look it up. Compacting files on a drive also re-writes over the files in the “open” (and re-used) zones, thus also qualifies as scrubbing. Finally, when server operating systems reorganize drive space to optimize disk access for high-use areas, they compact or otherwise move files about, thus overwriting the underlying data. Overwriting existing data with new, unrelated data, is the definition of scrubbing.

            Neither I nor Clinton EVER said that she had only personal stuff on her server (just another lie.) What she said was that none of the state department data on her server was classified, and so far none has been. What she said was that she deleted only personal emails from her server, not that she (or anyone else) “wiped”, “scrubbed”, or otherwise intentionally overwrote files to make them unreadable. Those are strictly your assertions.

            Yes, just like Powell and Rice, she erased files. Unlike Powell and Rice, she turned over all of the state department emails before doing so. What were they hiding? Did they have proof that all of the Iraq buildup was a lie? Why was this never investigated? (Well, because just like Clinton, they communicated with other state department folks and all of those emails ARE archived.) So, yes, they were never investigated, because their name isn’t “clinton”.

          • Dominick Vila

            What story did she change about Benghazi? The initial conclusion immediately after the attack was that it was influenced by a video that Muslims found offensive and that resulted in protests throughout the Islamic world. That was not a lie. That was a logical conclusion, corroborated by Al Libby when he was arrested. Whether or not terrorists took advantage of the protests to carry out an all out attack against our Consulate remains inconclusive, and in no way disproves the initial conclusion.
            Hillary never said that the documents sent and received via her private server were of a personal nature. In fact, she released 30,000 of those e-mails because she felt they were of an official nature and deserved to be scrutinized by the appropriate security agencies, as opposed to deleting them the way Powell and Rice did.
            Using a private server is not a crime. In fact, the applicable NARA guidelines on this issue were not put in place until after she left the State Department.
            No evidence has been provided to claim that Hillary Clinton sent classified material via her private server. There is a dispute ongoing between the Office of the Inspector General and the State Department as to whether or not some of the information should have been classified. In such cases, and when evidence is provided to confirm that information transmitted via open mediums was sensitive, it is presented to the appropriate agency/person as a recommendation to avoid recurrences.

          • itsfun

            If a person running for President cannot tell if a document should be or is classified, than how can you give that person access to our national secrets and make that person the commander in chief? She did say the server had personal stuff, like the wedding plans for her daughter and her yoga stuff. If what was on the server was so innocent, why did she have it scrubbed clean? She deleted something like 40,000 documents. Why? I have read that Obama issued a executive order telling all of his administration that they could not use private servers while she was in office.

          • Dominick Vila

            She did use her personal server and e-mail account to send personal information, like most Americans do, she acknowledged that fact, and she deleted most of those personal e-mails the way we all do.
            The accusations being made against her is not about her sending personal e-mails. It is focused on her using a personal server to send and receive government information and data, which was not a violation of any laws at the time she did it, and allegations that some of the data should have been classified. Read NARA 2010.46 if you want to have a more in depth understanding of this issue. BTW, all the e-mails she sent to government institutions are archived at the applicable entities and are available for scrutiny. Even if she deleted some while deleting her personal e-mails, they are not lost. It is also important to remember that pressing the Delete button on your keyboard does not mean the information cannot be retrieved from you server or computer.
            The classification of government information is not as simple as you think, and data is not always as obvious as you believe. For example, a photo of a group of people meeting somewhere may seem casual to most observers, but would be classified because one of the persons in the picture is one of the thousands of informants that provide information to the U.S. on matters of interest to us. You may also want to keep in mind that some of the, alleged, classified information was sent to Hillary by government officials who deemed it was not classified. In other words, she was not the initiator of the alleged violation.
            There is no question that she would have been better off using government mediums to exchange information, but what she did, and what Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and most elected officials have done and continue to do, was not a violation of any laws, or even guidelines, until President Obama updated the applicable rules governing the handling of official government information in November 2014, AFTER Hillary left the Federal government.

          • Dominick Vila

            Rice and Powell used public mediums, such as AOL, to send and receive government information. They deleted all their correspondence by the time they left office and, not surprisingly, nobody ever asked them to make it available to the public.
            No evidence has been provided by the Office of the Inspector General to confirm that classified information was mishandled, sent, or received via Hillary’s personal server. The spat that is ongoing involves the IG claiming that some of the information should have been classified, and the State Department saying that the information was unclassified. The worst that happens when incidents like this have happened in the past is that the applicable security agencies investigate the matter and either offer a clarification to the IG, or make recommendations to the applicable agency or department regarding the identification and handling of classified information. A criminal investigation is not in progress for the simple reason that no crime was committed. Would Hillary been better off using government resources? Obviously!

          • itsfun

            Deleting and scrubbing a document are 2 different actions. Rice and Powell did not own the servers. They would not have had the authority to scrub a hard drive. Hillary had her own private server, thus she would have had the authority to scrub the hard drive. Classified documents were found among the documents she turner over. She had classified documents on a unsecured server. The company she had to manage her server had NO security clearance. Like I said before, how can we trust someone with our nations secrets and be the commander in chief if she doesn’t know what documents should or should not be classified.

        • geraldhoey

          Benghazi is Republicanese for ” Boy do all of our candidates suck. ”

    • mwh191

      What does that have to do with the media getting the facts wrong, again and again?

      • itsfun

        All you need to do is watch the videos of her press conferences to see the media is not getting the facts wrong. She has changed her stories numerous times.

    • DAK27

      State Department official John Kirby told CNN that her use of a private email address and server was not against policy in effect at the time she was Secretary of State.

    • DAK27

      In NYT story, @maggieNYT confirms Gowdy’s staff handled now-classified State Dept email on an unclassified system

      • Dominick Vila

        The NARA guidelines were expanded and clarified in November 2014, after Hillary Clinton left office. Prior that that the most pertinent NARA guidelines involve the following:
        “According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, Agencies that allow employees to send and
        receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated
        by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such
        systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
        The implication is, clearly, that the NARA guidelines did not prohibit the use of personal or public servers or e-mail accounts to transmit and receive government material. They simply required that official documentation be archived and made available for review, if necessary. Since Hillary Clinton made 30,000 e-mails available for scrutiny, and since the State Department has, and provided access, to all the e-mails sent and received while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the s-called scandal is nothing more than a fabrication to destroy the credibility of a formidable opponent by a party that has nothing positive to offer.
        Sadly, this garbage has achieved its intended purpose.

  • latebloomingrandma

    If these e-mails are such a big deal, I wonder if Mrs. Clinton was just a former Senator and Sec. of State, but now is just private citizen Grandma Clinton, would this ever have been brought up? After all, private citizen and criminal Dick Cheney is roaming freely and still exercising his free speech .

  • DAK27

    In a way this doesn’t matter simply because there are NONE of the Republicans running that are fit to be county dog catcher, much less President. However , with that being said, it is a shame and a sham the way the media treats Hillary in particular and any Democrat in general. I wouldn’t mind if they did the same to ANY politician, but that isn’t the way it is. The Media has a hard-on for Clinton and will do anything, say anything, print anything (mostly lies, half-truths and innuendos) that shows Hillary in a bad light and that is just wrong. We no longer have a “free press” in this country, it has all be bought by the very people who have the most to gain from a Republican in the Whitehouse and it shows.

    • Proud Liberal

      I agree. It appears that MSM has decided they want a Republican president.

      • plc97477

        Most of the msm is owned by the 1%.

  • planetc

    I have been waiting since about 1994 or 1995 for the New York Times to apologize for getting the original Whitewater story wrong in 1992. After careful consideration, I have decided … not to hold my breath. Others here have speculated that the Times has descended to yellow journalism, or sold out to moneyed interests, but I think the basic motivation is one of identity. Those who guide the Times daily cannot admit that they are wrong, have been wrong for a long time about the Clintons, and that their stubborn persistence in being wrong has harmed the country and harmed their own newspaper seriously. Their collective ego is at stake: if they’re not the newspaper of record, who are they? It may take some time for the senior editors at the Times to realize how much damage they have done. In the meantime, whenever the Times does a story (and I use the term advisedly) about the Clintons, search the web diligently for what the Times left out.

    • Proud Liberal

      And Judith Miller’s reporting on the lead up to the Iraq war. NYT needs to clean its house.

    • plc97477

      I quit believing anything the times says a long time ago especially about the Clintons.

  • Dominick Vila

    The NYT, and the U.S. media in general, is nothing more than a tool used skillfully by our power brokers to advance their agenda. Their form of journalism does not even pretend to be objective, let alone truthful. Their goal is to destroy their targets by creating illusions to convince a naive electorate not to support those who run on merit and, instead, support charlatans who ought to be an embarrassment to every American with half a brain.
    When their agenda, or falsehoods, are exposed they remain silent, or refer to themselves as entertainers, which some interpret as a license to destroy whomever they wish. There is no accountability in what passes nowadays for journalism in America. Their goal is to generate doubt, and perceptions, even when there are no basis or evidence to support their opinions. Unfortunately, perceptions are often the only thing that matter when it comes to politics.

  • Daniel Jones

    The Times is only the news that’s printed to fit, nowadays.

  • geraldhoey

    Judicial Watch is nothing more than a right wing trolling organization for the Republican party. They are in the same league as the far right wing millionaires who kept the Paula Jones lawsuit alive long enough for it to ensnare Bill Clinton on the Monica mess. The lawsuit itself was later dismissed by the judge as “being without merit.”

  • David

    Poor Hillary!!! She says that the emails were not classified as “Confidential”. Well, it kinda boils down to this. Either she was too stupid to realize that the information contained on the emails received on her personal server were confidential OR she didn’t give a rat’s as..! No matter which one it is, she does not belong as POTUS.

    • Independent1

      When are you going to pack it in LOWLIFE?? Posters on the NM really don’t like blogging with PATHOLOGICAL LIARS!!

      So I’m going to keep this short. The State Department confirmed for the umpteenth time THERE WAS NO POLICY AGAINST HILLARY USING HER OWN HOME COMPUTER, AND IN FACT SHE FOLLOWED A PRACTICE THAT COLIN POWELL HAD STARTED!!

      And none of the emails currently on her computer were classified when she received them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Go stuff it LOWLIFE!!!

      There is no “there” there: Clinton Email Scandal Falls Apart As State Says There Was No Policy

      On CNN’s New Day, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact.

      Oh no! Facts. There was no policy against using a private email account when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. And the State Department has said this repeatedly but folks keep ignoring this FACT.

      Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy

      New policies somehow do not apply retroactively. No policy when Mrs. Clinton was SOS. No policy at all. She violated no policy because there was no policy to violate.

      And, in fact, Colin Powell used one. And, SOS Clinton followed the process that SOS Powell set up.

      How sad. There just isn’t any “there” there. All that GOP angst and hyperbole.

      • David

        Now, now, now…Breathe and relax. Okay, now let’s look at the facts. 1) No policy against using a private server was in place. 2) Confidential emails came in on her server. 3) Her personal server was not secure. 4) she knew that. 5) she was either too stupid to know that these emails were confidential OR didn’t give a rat’s as.!
        Aren’t you glad I helped you with understanding this? Have a blessed day.

        • johninPCFL

          So, that means that the originators of the emails, many of whom are long-term workers at the state department who sent the emails from their unclassified terminals, should also be jailed? Perhaps since the emails were sent from unclassified terminals and were not marked as classified by the people who sent them, maybe they just weren’t classified?

          Perhaps you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • David

            Why do you assume that the people who sent the emails did so on unclassified terminals? According to the Inspector, many of the emails were confidential. Have a blessed day.

          • Independent1

            LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
            The State Department has previously confirmed that all the emails on Hillary’s computer were UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SHE RECEIVED THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!

          • David

            And she was too stupid to know that the information was confidential and shouldn’t be on her unsecure private server?

          • Independent1

            Please don’t feed the pathological lying troll!!

          • David

            No answer? I am not surprised. Most of you brain dead libtards don’t have any sane reply to facts. But, have a blessed day.

          • johninPCFL

            According to the email trails unearthed so far and reported, they were sent from unclassified terminals.

            If you know different from reports, post the links.

          • David

            I know that some of the emails originated from Govt agencies. I have ASSUMED that they were secure terminals. If you have info to the contrary, please provide. By the way, OOPS! turns out Hildebeast sent at least 4 emails (at current count) from her “private” server that were supposed to be secret.
            Looks like the Hildebeast is in a lot of trouble!

          • johninPCFL

            Unlikely. Seems like some low-level functionary who sent her the email has been overruled: “These distinctions are explained in regular training sessions for employees, usually held annually. Because on a day-to-day basis, it’s ultimately these workers that determine whether or not an email they’re about to send contains classified information.

            “It’s incredibly challenging,” said Cohen, who also oversaw DHS counterterrorism programs. “You are, in the course of any given day, provided huge amounts of information, some of it highly classified, some of it classified at lower levels, some of it unclassified.”

            However, the classified determination doesn’t end once an email has been sent.

            Information in a message can be declared classified years after it was initially sent. And the State Department and intelligence community can also look at the same text and come to opposite conclusions over whether it contains secret information.

            The watchdog said it found a number of Clinton’s emails that currently contained “classified intelligence community information.” But the State Department has said it did not consider that language classified at the time those emails were sent.

            Both sides can be correct, said several former officials.

            Not only is each side entitled to different standards of classification, but information can become classified almost retroactively, as situations and guidelines change over the years.

          • David

            Thank you for the reply. I see that there are arguments for both sides on the emails received. However, what about the emails SENT by Hillary on her private server which were confidential?

          • johninPCFL

            There have been none found so far. As to emails that may be classified now, see the discussion above. Classification is often after the fact, and in some cases a totally random document is classified in order to keep a block of data out of the public domain when all of the data in the block is necessary to determine a result which is classified.

            For instance, I wrote a report for a local government agency (years ago) that contained radiation dosage data for our local area in the event of a fire in our facility. That data in the report and the conclusions obtained were unclassified. However, combined with trucking schedules, observations of truck sizes, and available meteorological data, it could have been used to calculate the amount of plutonium in our facility, and when it arrived and left. Movement data was classified. Since the trucking schedules and meteorological data could not be classified, my report was… a year after it was sent to the mayor…

            So, am I guilty of disclosing or mishandling classified data, when every review in the facility left the report unclassified for a year?

          • Independent1

            I had posted for this troll an article on a different thread which discussed the fact that the emails on Hillary’s computer were not classified when she received them. It mentioned that there were no set standards for assigning security status, and that quite often, people were assigning a security status to emails and other correspondence that was not assigned when the documents/email were created. The article in fact, referenced a 40 year old documentation of some Kissinger discussions which had been posted verbatim with no additional security assigned and had been on a server of at least the last 8 years, while someone just suddenly classified the information as ‘SECRET”, when it was on a server open to the public as unclassified.

            I’m going to start asking NM posters to stop feeding this pathological lying troll.

        • Independent1

          And the lies just keep rolling out of your mouth!! As I said – I’m through conversing with a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!!!

          • David

            Oh…Heres’ something interesting. Hildebeast sent at least 4 (at current count) emails from her private server that contained secret information.
            Oh my, could even more trouble be brewing for the Hildebeast? May have to hurry to get Obomo to pardon her!

      • Bill

        Her account wasn’t hacked, other Government Accounts were.

  • Theodora30

    How does Michael Schmidt still have a job at the Times? Someone should investigate him.

  • David L. Allison

    At least the Times, by repeating bogus stories, at least admits that Clinton is the “expected nominee” of the Democratic party. That is far more attention than the Times offers to Sanders except when it is a story about the impossibility that he will ever be able to beat Clinton.
    This NYTimes is an excellent example of the “librul media” that the right wing whines about constantly. With friends like this, the liberals don’t need enemies. Thank goodness there are a lot more of us than there are of them.