Type to search

Weekend Reader: ‘Killing The Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot To Derail Hillary And Hijack Your Government’

Politics Top News Weekend Reader

Weekend Reader: ‘Killing The Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot To Derail Hillary And Hijack Your Government’

Share

Ever since the New York Times published a front-page article about the personal email account used by Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State last March, that supposed scandal has dominated coverage of the Democratic presidential front-runner in the U.S. news media. But from the first day that story broke wide, David Brock — bestselling author, former right-wing journalist, and founder of Media Matters for America — raised questions that Times reporter Michael Schmidt seemed to willfully ignore.

Brock’s new book, Killing The Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government, is a personal and highly sophisticated investigation of the 2016 GOP propaganda machine and the Democratic response he has spearheaded.  Probing behind the email story, he delves into the curious symbiosis between partisan Republicans and the “liberal” newspaper of record — and how that mutual dependency influences American journalism for the worse.

You may read an excerpt below. The book, Killing The Messenger is available for purchase here.

__

It was Monday evening, March 2, 2015, when my inbox exploded.

The New York Times had just published a story by Michael Schmidt, and, at first glance, it looked bad:

HILLARY CLINTON USED PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT AT STATE DEPT., POSSIBLY BREAKING RULES

WASHINGTON— Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

The article even included a juicy quote:

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario— short of nuclear winter— where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

The fact that Hillary used a personal e‑mail account had been known for a couple of years, ever since Gawker published a story about it backin 2013. But on Twitter, even steadfast Democrats were freaking out. No government e‑mail address? Violating federal law?

Those two words in the headline— breaking rules— were ominous. And conservatives were already crowing, not just about the possibility that Hillary might actually be in trouble this time, but about the way the story fit into their caricature of her as calculating and secretive, someone who put her own political well-being above everything else— even, possibly, our national security; was she conducting diplomacy via Gmail?!?! Schmidt made sure to underscore that GOP talking point with an editorial comment of his own:

The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.

On top of that, Jeb Bush (whose new communications director was Tim Miller, formerly of the America Rising SuperPAC) had publicly and with great fanfare published his own e‑mail archives online— the contrast was unmistakable, and if you missed it, Schmidt helpfully reminded you of that, too.

Worst of all, while careful readers could tell that Schmidt’s story was sourced to the Republican committee investigating Benghazi, it hadn’t made its first appearance on Fox or in the Washington Free Beacon, but was more artfully planted in the paper of record. A story in the New York Times gets, essentially, an automatic pass into the next day’s news cycle— no outlet has the same power to command every reporter and pundit’s attention. Republicans could use the paper’s credibility for their own ends (“even the liberal New York Times”). And Democrats and liberals, for whom the Times is viewed as a reliable source of information, could be counted on to be especially shaken by the revelation.

In short, this was a big deal.

Reading the piece on my phone, I had no idea how much of it was true, nor how much of what was true was actually damaging. All I had to go on was a quote in the article from Nick Merrill, Hillary’s personal spokesman, asserting that she had complied with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”

In fact, I would have had a lot more to go on if the Times had published the meat of Merrill’s statement. And Times readers, as well, would have had a much better understanding of the issues at play.

Merrill had told the Times that previous secretaries of state had used personal e-mail accounts when conducting official business. He told the Times that when sending work e-mails from her personal account, Hillary e-mailed other officials on their work accounts, so that those e-mails would be retained by the government. And most important, he told the Times that use of personal e-mail accounts was permissible under federal rules, so long as work-related e-mails were retained, which Hillary did. In other words, if Merrill was right on his last point, the Times’  central allegation was based on a wrong interpretation of the relevant statues.

Why did the Times edit out such critical information, cutting Merrill’s statement down so drastically?

As Schmidt’s story was being put to bed, with its false hint of criminality trumpeted in an accusatory headline, Times editor Ryan held forth to colleagues that the response from the Clinton spokesman had been edited down to just a few stray phrases because she—Carolyn Ryan—believed it was a lie—and that the Clintons just lie.

Over the course of the evening, though, as other outlets tried to chase the New York Times report and I huddled with my staff on conference calls, it became clear that the Times had a more glaring problem than Hillary probably did. The Times, it turned out, not the Clinton spokesman, was the one lying.

First, and most important, the claim that Hillary had violated the law was wholly unsupported by anything Schmidt had reported.

The article referred to “federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record,” part of the Federal Records Act. But some quick research showed that the rules the Times suggested were broken were not in place when Hillary was secretary of state. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, which declared that official messages sent on personal accounts must be copied or forwarded to official accounts for record keeping, did not become law until more than eighteen months after she had left the State Department. The rules that were in effect during Hillary’s tenure at State did not require real-time archiving into State’s system, only that relevant records be retained and preserved, which Hillary clearly did.

In other words: The rule Schmidt was accusing Hillary of breaking wasn’t a rule at all when he suggested she broke it.

Buy From Amazon.com

Knowing these facts, the story was starting to make a little more sense. That “new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices” two months earlier had been a response to the new law. The State Department had, as part of an update to its record preservation policies, asked every former secretary of state dating back to Madeleine Albright to provide records (including e‑mails) from their time in office. In response, Hillary had sent more than 55,000 pages of e‑mails to be archived.

Within hours of the story’s publication, it was obvious that its central claim— that Hillary had possibly broken the law— was false. This alone should have been grounds for a retraction, or at least a prominent correction. By Tuesday morning, when the story appeared above the fold on the front page of the Times print edition with the subhead lack of archiving may break federal rules, we discovered more problems with it:

  • The initial version that went online reported that Hillary had provided the e‑mails to one of the congressional committees engaged in the Benghazi witch hunt. But the story was later updated to make it clear that she voluntarily submitted e‑mails sent from her account after the State Department first sought them as part of updating its records to comply with the new regulations. The Times never explained how Schmidt got that wrong.
  • Far down in the story, Schmidt noted that Hillary’s successor, John Kerry, used a government e‑mail account. But while Schmidt relayed this fact in an MSNBC interview the next morning, his original story didn’t tell readers that Kerry was, in fact, the first secretary of state ever to rely primarily on official State Department e‑mail.
  • Schmidt wrote, “Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell . . . used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.” This let Powell off the hook— but if that was right Hillary should have been in the clear, too: Her use of personal e‑mail also came “before the current regulations went into effect.”
  • And that quote from Hillary’s spokesman? The full quote was missing from the lengthy article. Schmidt was unable to find room for what Hillary’s spokesman actually said. Or did he just not want to undermine his jurcy premise? (Only later did I learn the quote was purposely truncated.)
  • Finally, the primary source cited to indict Hillary’s use of a personal e‑mail account, Jason “Nuclear Winter” Baron, flatly told CNN that he did not believe Hillary had violated the law. Did Schmidt not ask him that question? Or did Schmidt just not find the answer useful?

That Tuesday, March 3, it was the pundits’ turn to weigh in on the previous evening’s story, and the hot takes were flying. “This will feed the idea she’s hiding something,” said Dana Bash on CNN, comparing the story to Mitt Romney’s infamous “47 percent” tape. Her colleague, Brianna Keilar, speculated that the controversy might spark challenges from other Democrats. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus wrote, “The Clintons’ unfortunate tendency to be their own worst enemy is on display again.”

Democrats, meanwhile, awoke in full meltdown. Cable news was looking for guests to defend Hillary’s use of personal e‑mail; at this early stage of the story, with so many questions unanswered and facts unknown, few volunteered.

But I did. Even though I didn’t yet have an answer to every question raised in the article, I did have plenty of evidence to show that the Times had misfired badly. The central allegation— that Hillary had broken federal rules— was unsupported by the story; no one, including the lead expert quoted in the story, was backing it up. That was ground we could fight on. I also focused on the fact that the story advanced the agenda of partisan sources in the GOP desperately searching for a way to keep the failed Benghazi investigation active.

Adding to my confidence level was my firsthand experience with many other stories just like this one.

I had seen it all before: the weakly supported accusations of wrongdoing, the feeding frenzy from a press corps hoping to write the Clintons’ political obituary, the braying on the right and the panic on the left. My instincts told me that if we just gave the story another poke or two, the whole house of cards would collapse.

So, that Tuesday morning, I assembled all the flaws we’d found in Michael Schmidt’s story and sent an open letter to the public editor of the New York Times asking for a prominent correction. And when those media bookers started calling around, looking for talkers, I told them to sign me up, doing four shows in one day.

Wednesday morning, I appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were convinced that Hillary was done for, and somewhat incredulous that I was defending her so strongly: “The story,” I said, “was wrong. It’s based on a false premise.” (“I’m not sure what planet I’m on right now,” Mika marveled when I refused to admit that some law must have been broken.)

Bob Woodward, also on the panel, tried to get me to hedge: “Clearly, it was a good story. You may have some technical disagreements, but we get into this issue— were the walls green, is that really illegal and so forth, it’s an important story, won’t you concede that?”

But it wasn’t a good story. The central premise had fallen apart. So I held my ground. No hedging.

Instead, I reminded the audience of what was really going on: “Let’s not have a situation where the normal journalistic rules apply to everybody but Hillary Clinton. And let’s not forget that the real story here is, you’ve got a dying Benghazi investigation on Capitol Hill . . . they want a fishing expedition into these e‑mails.”

I better understood the reluctance of my fellow Democrats to defend Hillary in that moment when the press notices on my appearances came in. Peggy Noonan called me a “weirdo.” The National Review Online would cite my “unique melange of clownishness, self-interest, and hyper-competence,” suggesting that I was “taking the heat” for the Clintons like a “good and faithful servant.” And Fox News, commenting on my wavy gray locks, called me “Captain Crazy Hair.”

To Maureen Dowd, I was officially a Hillary “hatchet.” And according to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Media Matters was now to be regarded as a “propaganda operation,” while American Bridge was Hillary’s “attack machine.”

The strangest comment, apparently meant to be an anti-gay slur, came from the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who fantasized about my taking orders from Hillary after “slinking” out of a “leather onesie.”

All of it was an unpleasant reminder that marginalizing Democrats who forcefully defend their own side— rather than seeking a “reasonable” middle ground and hedging the defense— was all part of the game. And so was the political media’s continuing overreaction, as the Sunday shows and op‑ed columnists got their chance to weigh in on What It All Meant.

“This isn’t about the e‑mails,” said Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter on Meet the Press, explaining that “it feeds into this narrative that she isn’t a change agent.”

__

Excerpted from Killing The Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government.  Copyright (c) 2015 by David Brock. Reprinted by permission of Twelve/Hachette Book Group, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

If you enjoyed this excerpt, purchase the full book here.

Photo: Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton speaks on “Face the Nation” with John Dickerson, in Washington, D.C., in this picture provided by CBS News, September 20, 2015. REUTERS/CBS News/Chris Usher/Handout via Reuters  

Tags:

You Might also Like

107 Comments

  1. petemobtv October 4, 2015

    FAKE? The only thing fake is this media calling itself a new media. Phony as they come. Nothing but Democrat @$$ kissers.

    Reply
    1. r l October 4, 2015

      you only say that because it differs from the outright lying trash masqueraded as news on FUXnews. Anything that is at odds with what you psychos see on there you call liberal lies when it is in reality THE TRUE news. It’s so crazy they think EVERY other news source is corrupt, BUT FUXnews…really????!!! Does that even seem rational on ANY level? No! They preach hate, intolerance and division. but many of you are so brainwashed it’s truly horrifying…

      1. petemobtv October 4, 2015

        Please tell us exactly what Fox has said that is a lie . Go ahead, we are all waiting. We want to be as rational as you.

        1. Charles van Rotterdam October 4, 2015

          You just dug your own hole sunshine

          1. petemobtv October 4, 2015

            And the lies would be……?????? I am waiting.

          2. MacK October 5, 2015

            Do you walk on tiles – how do you avoid skidding in your own drool…..

          3. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Ha,ha, ha…..where are the lies, you fool? Just another one of Gruber’s idiots. Ha ha, ha. Can’t stand it because you are wrong…..ha, ha. ha. Democrats. Sooo stupid. So easily led.

          4. RED October 5, 2015

            I realize of course that when someone has been brain washed by a cult, like Fox and the Reich Wing Nut Jobs, they can no longer think for themselves or live in a reality based world. But why do you do a quick little google search for Fox lies and see what comes up. Gonna keep you busy for a while!!! But of course, we already know that the cult teaches you that any other facts besides the ones given to by the cult are lies, that’s how cults work. Oh and they take all your money too, i.e. for Fox & Beck and all the other nut jobs, they like to sell you end of the world crap.

          5. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            I am still waiting for the ‘lies’ put forth by FoxNews that could support your point. Until then, you kind of look like an @$$hole.

          6. MacK October 6, 2015

            I hit a nerve there – so falling on that floor hurt huh!

        2. RED October 5, 2015

          Wow!! Are you really that frigging stupid? Let me make it easy for you, if Fox News is broadcasting, they are lying!!! The fact that you and a bunch of other Kool Aid drinking morons actually believe their stupidity does not actually make it factual, it just makes you a moron.

          1. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Ha, ha,ha….give us an example of Fox News lying. Go ahead. Kool ade drinkers? Hmmmm, you really ought to give that some thought. Could YOU be the Kool ade drinker? You haven’t provided any reason to think that Fox News is spitting out lies, now have you? ummmm, who is the moron?

          2. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

            Here you go…
            On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

        3. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

          On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

          1. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Wow. You sure did a lot of surfing to come up with this. Please note: Fox
            Television is NOT the national Fox News you and the other dolts are referring
            to. This is a local television based in Florida and does NOT come under the
            same jurisdiction as Fox News. It’s kind of like Fox television programming.
            Nice try, though. I am sure your fellow idiots will try to make hay out of
            this, but it simply is NOT Fox News. Back to the drawing board….

          2. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

            I think you asked for 1 example. Having been confronted with one (and I didn’t do a lot of surfing to find it – I remembered it from when it happened because it was so outrageous) you parse and parse, floundering for an excuse that this clear example wasn’t Fox News. No parade of examples will dent the bulletproof hat you wear, but here’s another citation:
            Fox News Crops Biden Dishonestly
            In March, Fox News’s Martha MacCallum presented a clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” — and presented it as from an interview that weekend. In fact, the clip came from a 2008 campaign event at which Biden was quoting Sen. John McCain.
            It’s a target rich environment.

          3. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Please send me where you found this. Proof is needed here…not just hearsay….”the fundamentals of the economy are strong”…now THAT sure is a lie. And using ‘stock’ film is something all news media do. So….let me know where I can find this, OK? If it came from MSNBC don’t bother.

          4. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

            Here’s the clip: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html?slidenumber=1#slide_image
            Incidentally, Fox News defended the Fox TV station, so Fox news definitely came down on the side of lying on the air.
            Conversing with you puts me in mind of an adage I’ve rarely found appropriate, but I’m thinking this an exceptional case: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

          5. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            ahhh, the huffington post…a real reliable read. But read it, I will…and most likely find that it is full of $hit…..just like you. You spent all this evening trying to prove that Fox lies, whereas I could take two minutes to prove to you that Hillary lies….regularly…as does Obama. You are truly a fool. Yup, one of Gruber’s idiots, for sure.

          6. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Oh you dumb puck…..that article was from FIVE YEARS AGO! And the Huffington Post? HA, ha,ha, ha…..

          7. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            Ha! This is all about ADMINISTRATION CRITICISM of Fox. Administration. That
            means OBAMA, you fool. You know…the guy who lies to you regularly and whom you
            believe time and time again. “Administration” should have thrown up a few red
            flags, but I guess you are so used to taking it up the rear that you never even
            noticed. Don’t bother me anymore. You are dumber than a box of rocks

          8. Tom Walker October 6, 2015

            Your erudition is truly a thing of wonder!

          9. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

            Oh, the link I sent points you at 10 “most egregious” examples of Fox distortions. It isn’t a comprehensive set by any means.

          10. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            The Huffington Post…..are you SERIOUS??? And it took you all night to find this? What a loon!!

          11. Tom Walker October 5, 2015

            Oh, I hadn’t said it before, but I sincerely do appreciate your name calling. Ad hominem attacks always do suggest a firm grasp of the issues a t hand.

  2. bikejedi October 4, 2015

    Too funny ….It’s a vast right wing conspiracy right ? Why its as if Hillary didn’t use her own private server to send and receive top secret info . Why it’s as if she didn’t delete over 30,000 pages of emails to hide and destroy evidence and its as if she didn’t lie about all of these things …Yes those evil right wingers are out to get her

    Reply
    1. Tom Walker October 4, 2015

      It is unsurprising that your snarky post addresses not one of the factual points this article makes. Much easier to retreat to innuendo than deal with the actual facts of the matter. What a troll.

      1. bikejedi October 4, 2015

        Maybe the article should actually inform liberals rather than spin around the facts of the matter …Maybe then more Liberals would actually know what’s going on and fewer of you would be defending a criminal

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

        1. r l October 4, 2015

          much easier for morons like you to perpetuate outright LIES. what shameful examples of human beings

          1. petemobtv October 4, 2015

            What are the lies?

          2. bikejedi October 4, 2015

            Maybe you aren’t paying attention to the fact she lied about the emails then had the chutzpah to joke about wiping her server like with aa cloth showing how she thinks she is above the law and how she can get away with anything while showing her utter contempt for you because she knows you aren’t paying attention and if you are you don’t even care that she is a criminal …Oh and then she took it back and admitted she has been lying… if you aren’t aware of what is going on please either make yourself aware or don’t vote …Look what uninformed voters stuck us with the last two times ???

          3. Lone rider October 4, 2015

            If Hillary was a criminal, why hasn’t the FBI who investigated her, arresting her? Oh, and don’t say that the FBI was told not to do their duty!

          4. bikejedi October 5, 2015

            First off that may still happen especially if they can retrieve the emails Hillary deleted when she wiped her server like with a cloth .Hell if you compare it to Gen P she should’ve been arrested already . But she is Dem royalty so she might be right in her attitude that that makes her untouchable . The arrogance she displayed with that server comment is a middle finger to you and all of us but don’t let that stop you from having cult like devotion …After all what difference do her morals make as a potential POTUS ..

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          5. petemobtv October 5, 2015

            The FBI, along with the IRS and the Justice
            Department (for which I used to work) have become political arms of the
            administration under Obama….something that should NEVER happen in a free
            society. So, yes. I am telling you that the FBI is strong armed into doing
            Obama’s bidding.

          6. Lone rider October 5, 2015

            So you are telling me that the FBI would not go after Hillary if she did what you accuse her of? Bullshit! You may have worked for the justice department but what was your capacity? Supervising attorney? Janitor? Clerk, cafeteria worker? You have no credibility as afr as I am concerned. I have a close friend who is a retired special agent in charge of a field office and he told me, NO WAY would the FBI let anyone slide. They went after democrat NY gov Spitzer and would go after any politicians who violate laws as serious as the accusations made by many trolls here. Don’t assume I am liberal because I see a hack job from the GOP. I am a Vietnam vet and a patriot and was a republican until the tea party hijacked the conversation. The fringe on the right are trying to discredit anyone who dosen’t agree with them and that includes people here who resort to the name calling in order to force feed their beliefs to others. I would believe Hillary before I woould believe some tea party wacko’s. 97% of the tea party congress believes the earth is 6000 years old and the sun revolves around the earth. That scares the hell out of me that lunatics or at the very least, highly uneducated are in charge of our government. So when the “scandal” started by a right wing newspaper journalist, I find the credibility of th paper to be suspect.
            Now all of you can start the name calling!

          7. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

            It is not helpful to any side in an argument to descend to this insulting style. It tends to remove us from our cerebral Cortex into out limbic systems.

      2. Whatmeworry October 4, 2015

        factual points? Like Powell used a private email…no he NEVER sent any email from that account if it could be construed as classified.
        The law allows a federal official to discard personal emails however Hilary never did that some aid made that decision thereby violating the law

        1. Whatmeworry October 4, 2015

          George Bush not Hilliary violated the law by sending classified emails, and Reagan left classified documents around in full sight for the soviets

        2. Daniel Max Ketter October 4, 2015

          Why Ms Clinton is the best candidate out there to keep our country and economy strong. Certainly me & Linda will be proud to vote for her. I know for a fact she is more respected by our military than any of the republican goofballs. God bless our organized labor for their service to our fine country also.

          1. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

            I’ll be proud to vote for her too if she prevais in the Primary. Meantime I support Sanders as I think it more likely that he will vigorously assert his stated policies.

        3. Whatmeworry October 6, 2015

          Linda Rae Ketter is sooo fugly….they filmed “Gorillas in the Mist” in her shower

        4. Whatmeworry October 9, 2015

          Too bad Linda Rae Ketter is an ugly old dog….arf arf

      3. Whatmeworry October 4, 2015

        factual points? Like Powell used a private email…no he ALWAYS sent any email from that account if it could be construed as classified.
        The law allows a federal official to discard personal emails however Hilary never did that some repub aid made that decision thereby violating the law

    2. MichaelC October 4, 2015

      If anything you wrote were true I might be concerned.

      1. bikejedi October 4, 2015

        It’s all true .Aren’t you paying attention to what Hillary lied to then joked about and then admitted she lied to ? How about what the FBI investigation revealing ? Please tell me you are aware of current events and if you are not please make yourself aware of these things before you vote . We’ve had enough of that in the last two elections and look what that led to

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

        1. MichaelC October 4, 2015

          Take a few minutes to read the article. Or are you feeling the Bern?

          1. bikejedi October 4, 2015

            I did and I was speaking on Hillary not the tripe in the article

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          2. MichaelC October 4, 2015

            Let’s see if we can make this clearer for you. The New York Times is considered the paper of record…by the New York Times. They are still clinging stubbornly to a story that has been thoroughly discredited. The NYTimes was aware that previous Secretaries of State had used personal e-mail accounts when conducting official business. The NYTimes knew that when sending work e-mails from her personal account, HRC e-mailed other officials on their work accounts, so that those e-mails would be retained by the government. The NYTimes knew that use of personal e-mail accounts was permissible under federal rules, so long as work-related e-mails were retained, which HRC did. The NYTimes falsely stated that when HRC was Secretary of State, the Federal Records Act required that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 , declaring that official messages sent on personal accounts must be copied or forwarded to official accounts for record keeping, did not become law until more than 18 months after HRC left the State Department. The rules in effect during her tenure at State had no such requirement, only that relevant records be retained and preserved, which HRC did. As part of an update to its record preservation policies under the new requirements, State asked every former secretary of state dating back to Madeleine Albright to provide records (including emails) from their time in
            office. HRC sent more than 55,000 pages of emails to be
            archived. Colin Powell, her immediate predecessor, did not because he had deleted them all, which the NYTimes knew because it was part of the public record of the GWBush administration. It was also discovered that the GWBush administration deleted some 22 million of its emails, with barely a peep from the NYTimes or any Republican on Capitol Hill. Or Democrats for that matter. HRC’s email was made into a story because she’s the strongest Democrat in the race, one any Republican would have a tough time defeating, so the drip-drip-drip of what the NYTimes and others reported as a scandal is a campaign tactic.

          3. MichaelC October 4, 2015

            Sorry for posting twice. Looked as if it hadn’t gone through the first time.

          4. MichaelC October 4, 2015

            Let’s see if we can make this clearer for you. The New York Times is considered the paper of record…by the New York Times. They are still clinging stubbornly to a story that has been thoroughly discredited. The original story was sourced from the Republican Benghazi committee in the House.

            The NYTimes was aware that previous Secretaries of State had used personal e-mail accounts when conducting official business. The NYTimes knew that when sending work e-mails from her personal account, HRC e-mailed other officials on their work accounts, so that those e-mails would be retained by the government. The NYTimes knew that use of personal e-mail accounts was permissible under federal rules, so long as work-related e-mails were retained, which HRC did. The NYTimes falsely stated that when HRC was Secretary of State, the Federal Records Act required that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 , declaring that official messages sent on personal accounts must be copied or forwarded to official accounts for record keeping, did not become law until more than 18 months after HRC left the State Department. The rules in effect during her tenure at State made no such requirement, only that relevant records be retained and preserved, which HRC did. As part of an update to its record preservation policies under the new requirements, State asked every former secretary of state dating back to Madeleine Albright to provide records (including emails) from their time in office. HRC sent more than 55,000 pages of emails to be archived. Colin Powell, her immediate predecessor, did not because he had deleted them all, which the NYTimes knew because it was part of the public record of the GWBush administration. It was also discovered that the GWBush administration deleted some 22 million of its emails, with barely a peep from the NYTimes or any Republicans on Capitol Hill. HRC’s email was made into a story because she’s the strongest Democrat in the race, one any Republican would have a tough time defeating, so the drip-drip-drip of what the NYTimes and others reported as a scandal is a campaign tactic.

            So are you part of the Bernie Sanders campaign or one of the Flat Earth people?

          5. bikejedi October 5, 2015

            What utter BULLSHIT …So what you are stating is that even though Hillary maintained her own server and decided to be the sole arbiter of what to delete EVEN WHEN SHE KNEW SHE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION that she had the foresight to think ahead knowing that the people she sent emails to that theirs would be on Govt servers …Too funny . What about Top Secret info or State secrets she may have shared with people like Blumenthal ..And how would anyone know who or what she sent out of the 30,000 pages she deleted …that is if they can’t be recovered ..I mean you must be in complete denial if you don’t see the criminal attempt on her part to control incriminating evidence and then destroy it …How do you develop that level of denial or does it just come by being a liberal

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          6. MichaelC October 5, 2015

            Again, if any of your accusations were true, and every single one is inaccurate, I might be concerned, but all you’re doing is regurgitating what you’ve picked up from those attempting to destroy her campaign. It’s the entire phony “scandal” that’s b.s.

          7. bikejedi October 5, 2015

            Do you not pay attentions to the news ? The FBI is investigating her .They are attempting to retrieve the emails Hillary decided to take it upon herself and just delete . In the meantime they are going through the ones that are being released and have found over 300 that were Top Secret and never shouldve been on a personal server …By the way doesn’t it strike you as odd she would set up her own server and doesn’t that raise red flags to you ??????????????????? . Please pay attention to current events so you don’t end up voting for an unqualified criminally unethical pathological liars ….Look what uninformed voters saddled us with the last two times

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          8. bikejedi October 5, 2015

            And no I wouldn’t vote for a Socialist or a Criminal …so neither . Remember when there were Democrats who were Patriots …one’s that loved their Country and abided by the Constitution …Remember Kennedy warning against Socialism and Communism and fighting against it …Maybe that got him whacked ..hmmm

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          9. Kurt CPI October 5, 2015

            The problem with all of this isn’t that she did anything differently than some of her predecessors. The problem is accountability. When someone controls their own flow of information, they eliminate it from review by others. Where this is a desirable thing for personal email, governmental email is supposed to be archived for review if necessary. The FBI (not the NY Times) stated that the server delivered to them had been wiped. And Hilary herself said that personal emails had been deleted. The ” I didn’t want to carry two phones” excuse is just ridiculous. However, there’s no way of ever knowing intent, and even if there was intent to communicate without disclosure, that could have been done with any private email server aside from the sanctioned government server. There’s plenty of other back-door stuff this article leaves out – check out reports by the financial market researchers who are saying that the initial leak was from Valerie Jarrett’s office. Republicans want to win, and this is currently a working strategy. The idea that if the situation were reversed that Democratic politicians would be less aggressive is the biggest fallacy in pieces like this.

          10. MichaelC October 5, 2015

            When the State Department asked former Secretaries of State to submit their electronic files for archiving, Hillary turned over 55,000 pages of email records. Did you raise the same concerns when it was revealed that Colin Powell deleted the entirety of his official email correspondence? The email server in question was that set up for former President Bill Clinton and had numerous safeguards. It was never hacked, unlike email systems of certain government agencies. So what exactly is the point?

          11. Kurt CPI October 5, 2015

            You’re still trying to justify the gap by pointing to improper correspondence by someone else. I’m not the one who raised concerns. I just pointed out that in a presidential race anything that has the slightest chance of calling an opponents credibility into question is fodder for the political harpies and vultures. But the idea that the blame game is played only on one side of the field is head-in-sand.

          12. MichaelC October 6, 2015

            What gap?! But we agree on this: anything that has the slightest chance of calling an opponents credibility into question is fodder for the political harpies and vultures. Especially when one side spends all its waking hours focused on destroying one candidate.

          13. joe schmo October 6, 2015

            Dude, you CANNOT dispute the fact that she did not react to this incident right away. Any other SOS would have. She claimed it was all because of a movie. Pleeeaaaaassseee and I’m a rockstar… Geez!

          14. joe schmo October 6, 2015

            You mean that communist? I even know liberals who are jumping ship and going over to the ‘dark side.’ LOL No one wants a communist in office. Only those stupid kids who haven’t been out in the REAL world yet.

    3. yabbed October 5, 2015

      Nonsense. Everything is a giant conspiracy to the bagger tools. Hillary Clinton’s emails were most likely safer from hacking on her server than on the government’s.

      1. bikejedi October 5, 2015

        Sure that is why Russian Hackers were attempting to hack her unsecured emails and probably did so …oh yeah and every criminal act Clinton does is just ” a vast right wing conspiracy ” right ???? Too Funny …I guess the FBI is controlled by them and not this administration …got it

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

        1. Lone rider October 5, 2015

          Do you or anyone else remember when Bill Clinton was president? The GOP spent billions of dollars over 7 years to “investigate” him for everything from real estate deals, This gate and that gate and after having special prosecutor Ken Starr sppend billions of taxpayers money-he was found have gotten oral sex from Lewinsky. That was the worst they couldfind on him despite the vendetta. So a vast right wing conspiracy is a documented fact against the Clintons. So many here after watching Fox lies, are easily led and brainwahed into believing all the lies that are spewed on that network. How they ever got FCC approval is beyond me. The problem is Fox doesn’t tell the truth and exaggerates stories all the while pushing their doctrine-a right wing conspiracy in the open.

          1. bikejedi October 6, 2015

            First off why do you keep talking about Fox ? Secondly what does Billy Blo Job have to do with the fact the FBI is investigating his wife in name only ? Is the FBI running a ” vast right wing conspiracy ” ? Too funny

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

      2. joe schmo October 6, 2015

        Give me a break! Is your computer safe from hackers? I doubt it. She wouldn’t be trying to actually HIDE something would she? Gawd!

    4. RED October 5, 2015

      It’s truly shocking how damaging the Con sickness is to the small brained ignorant morons it infects. Here we have a moron who appears incapable of even reading the story that he is commenting on. But if only the Con sickness made morons more moronic, I suppose we could live with it. But sadly the Con sickness has many other symptoms, like expressing their complete ignorance and wearing their stupidity as a badge of honor.

      1. bikejedi October 5, 2015

        Look , I read it and already stated I was commenting on Hillary in general ..and here you are being an immature liberal spewing ignorant insults simply because you aren’t intellectually capable of debating or refuting a thing I posted …How wonderfully typical of a liberal

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

      2. joe schmo October 6, 2015

        Con sickness? We have nothing on you commies. You have said nothing in your comment worth noting. Sadly, you morons are ruining this country with your communist agenda. With every daybreak your emperor tears down this country with the sweep of his pen and his shitty phone.

        Come on morons…open up the border let the floodgates bring in the vagrants. The stupider you and your brethren become. I know all about communism. My father escaped it. I visited it as a child. I have a Romanian friend who also escaped communism. Sadly, you have no idea about the suppression you are asking for. Kind of reminds me on the scene from Hunger Games where the people have no rights and the government man makes all the rules. Think about it. This next election will be a turning point. Either you want freedom or you want suppression. The choice is yours.

        1. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

          Same criticism I gave Red above.

      3. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

        This type of commentating is not good for any side and we should endeavour to admonish ourselves to do better.

        1. RED October 7, 2015

          I appreciate your sentiment, Michael. And I do understand where you’re coming from. However, I will respectfully disagree. These ignorant Cons are much like the Nazis of the 30’s in Germany. And their bigoted hateful lies must be crushed. Facts and reality are not simply a different opinion. These dirtbags are to blame for innumerable problems in this country, from the stagerring amount of poverty to the failure to act on climate change to bigotry and racism and not too mention the countless deaths from gun violence and their desire to deny everyone healthcare care. So your suggestion is certainly noble and would be quite accurate if we were dealing with a normal caring group of humans, but Cons are neither. I mean just take a listen to Joe schmo, he actually has the ignorant nerve to suggest communist actions are occurring in the US. Then the moronic claims to know people who escaped communist countries .Which of course were true he would realize how absolutely ridiculously stupid that is. So you cannot deal rationally with the mentally deranged, the Con sick.

    5. 788eddie October 5, 2015

      After how many years, and how many investigating committees?

      Yes, I’m beginning to believe they are out to get her.

      1. bikejedi October 5, 2015

        I never thought they would find anything actionable on Benghazi except maybe some criminal negligence for not supplying requested and necessary security to sites that were in Muslim Terrorist jeopardy ……But the fact she knowingly made up that ridiculous You Tube Lie to try to excuse herself and then lied over those caskets is despicable …The email thing is a completely seperate issue but it looks like she got rid of everything she thought was incriminating soooo

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

        1. Johnnie Goode October 5, 2015

          Great job of packing in every Fix News talking point. However most of them have been debunked repeatedly…thats why ts all e-mail all the time.

          The fun part is what a Clinton does when cornered by right wing BS. Bill came out of the impeachment stronger than before. The public will soon see that the “Shrillary” blow up doll you have created of her in no way resembles the real person. Get ready to have your eyes clawed out. She will be both mean and sweet and America will love her for it.

          Ali called it the rope a dope. She has roped your side in, now she will show you for the dopes you are. Thanks, Mr McCarthy, for confessing guilt.

          1. bikejedi October 5, 2015

            Man you really aren’t paying attention …Nothing has been debunked .Here is what is known …The FBI is investigating her .They are trying to retrieve the emails and evidence she arbitrarily wiped …like with a cloth or something …in the meantime they have already found over 300 emails that are suspicious as to level of security as well as thyhe fact that Russian Hackers may have hacked her …Now even a liberal can see there was only one reason for her to have her own server and for her to take it upon herself to delete emails while she knew she was under investigation …Couple that with her long and storied history of lies and deception and I have to ask .I .Why would you defend or support someone so unethical …or doesn’t that stuff matter to liberals

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

          2. joe schmo October 6, 2015

            Nah, all they care about is their own agenda. One day they will literally pay for their foolishness….

          3. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

            Bikejedi, A little more attention to learning and less to commentating will do you, all of us a mitzvah!

          4. bikejedi October 7, 2015

            Take your own advice

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

        2. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

          You know, of course that your last statement is false, right?

          1. bikejedi October 7, 2015

            It’s accurate

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

    6. joe schmo October 6, 2015

      LOL, Obama threw her under the bus……

      1. bikejedi October 7, 2015

        Hahahaha

        Powered by Cricket Wireless

        ——– Original message ——–

    7. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

      It is always best to fact check oneself before embarrassing yourself with an embarrassing falsehood not even supported by your premise.

  3. Otto Greif October 4, 2015

    If you want to understand David Brock remember antiretroviral side effects include delusions, agitation, paranoia and mania.

    Reply
    1. MichaelC October 4, 2015

      Trolls, trolls, trolls. And not a rational thought among the lot of you.

      1. joe schmo October 6, 2015

        Rational thought? You have no idea what that is.

        1. MichaelC October 7, 2015

          Really? How long did it take you to come up with that gem? I see you’re one of those poor souls who think discourse is a contact sport and treat every rational thought as a volley to smash back regardless of the facts. Now wash your hands and go join your little pals at the kiddie table.

    2. Elliot J. Stamler December 21, 2015

      An absurd comment. I just finished reading Mr. Brock’s book. It does not contain paranoia, mania, etc. in the least. It is a very detailed study of the long-time campaign against Mrs. Clinton. The book is unabashedly pro-Clinton and while it is somewhat repetitive and Mr. Brock lays it on with a heavy hand it is well worth reading by anyone interested in the presidential comment. Mr. Greif, above, is one who calls names without knowledge.

  4. FT66 October 4, 2015

    They came out with hammers, knives, spears, stones and any kind of weapon to kill HRC’s candidancy and they have struck a big rock. Dude, will they still continue to call themselves media that has to do their job efficiently? All journalists mentioned on this article, have lost credibility, in my humble opinion.

    Reply
    1. joe schmo October 6, 2015

      Honestly, in my humble opinion, the conservative media has also lost its scruples. I tend to listen to radio and read articles on the internet. Television is null and void and promoting communism.

      1. 788eddie October 8, 2015

        Except for Fox, which, I think, is not beyond promoting the wealthy interests (but, then again, they, like most media, is owned by the very wealthy).

  5. helen.wright16 October 5, 2015

    Here is a method how you can make fifty-five dollars /an hour… After being unemployed for six-months , I started making money over this internet company and today I am very satisfied. After 3 months on my new job my income is around $5000-per month -Check Link on ___MY-____PROFILE___-PAGE for more information

    Reply
    1. yabbed October 5, 2015

      Flagged as spam

  6. yabbed October 5, 2015

    And watch the blogs and website comments for the GOP operatives, the NRA and AIPAC paid trolls, who are promoting Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton. It’s the same fraud.

    Reply
    1. RED October 5, 2015

      Really? I guess that may be true for some, but some of us thinking people, i.e. progressives who are immune to the Con sickness, just like Bernie Sanders and think he would be excellent for our country because we are sick and tired of “centrist Democrats” which really only means they’re selling us out at a slightly slower pace than the Cons. Sorry for the run on sentence.

      1. yabbed October 5, 2015

        Ah, you don’t like gun control because Sanders doesn’t. But you do like war because Sanders does. I guess you applauded Sanders when he voted against stronger background checks following the massacre of school children at Sandy Hook and said, “well, hammers kill, too”. He likes the expanding Pentagon budgets, too, so I suppose you do, too. He supports the ongoing Israeli slaughter of Palestinians and insists that the American taxpayer replenish the Israelis for every bomb, missile, white phosphorus and depleted uranium shell and every bullet used in the attacks on the defenseless Palestinians. So, what you want is not a “centrist Democrat” because Sanders is not a Democrat at all and he’s very right wing on issues that matter to the NRA and AIPAC. Where he’s reactionary is his 90% tax rate that allows the government to redistribute income. Now I understand.

        1. 788eddie October 5, 2015

          Hey yabbed, I don’t agree totally with ANY candidate. This time, though, I haven’t found any on the GOP side who I think will be healthy for our country. They’ve all been forced to become a little too flaky for me by the “rabid right.”

          I’m now looking at the Democrat candidates. However, I still don’t find anyone who agrees with me on all issues – there are just too many issues. We’ll all have to decide who supports most of the issues we feel strongly about.

          Good luck to you.

          1. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

            I have really appreciated the change embodied in the more intelligent handling of the Presidency by President Obama. There is much I disagree with in this administration but I have not a whisper of chance that any Republican proposed would have done better.

        2. RED October 5, 2015

          Ok, so according to you I must be in lock step or maybe locked goose step with every position even the made up ones of any candidate I support? Is this true for you as well or only applicable to others? Just curious so I can know that you fully support the mass incarceration of Americans that the Clintons helped to bring about. Don’t get me wrong I think both Hillary and Bill are good leaders, personally voted for Bill twice. But it’s time for a more “reactionary” candidate who is willing to confront the Wall Street criminals and all the other thieves who have stolen our democracy. And you may be unwilling to admit it but Sanders has forced Hillary to the left at least for now. Also I’m aware of Sanders voting record on gun legislation. I’m also aware of his comments this weekend. You may see anyone who supports Sanders as some kind of right wing plant but we’re not and neither are the thousands appearing at Sanders’ events.

        3. joe schmo October 6, 2015

          Redistribute income? LOL that’s is not a right wing virtue…. He definitely is not Conservative. He panders to the young people who don’t know anything yet because they haven’t been out in the world.

      2. joe schmo October 6, 2015

        Oh comrade, bring on the suppression. Many moderate Democrats won’t fall for him.

    2. joe schmo October 6, 2015

      You have one thing correct, Bernie won’t win because he is too extreme. He is a Communist! As far as conservatives. We don’t like ANY of the main stream political choices:) We won’t be pushed into what they want. Funny thing, many Liberal women like Donald Trump, as well as African Americans and many legal Hispanics…. LOL

  7. joe schmo October 6, 2015

    Really! What a crock. She should have acted on Benghazi immediately! She did nothing. It was her fault. Her movie excuse is ridiculous. The FBI is on to her. Obama threw her under the bus. If she becomes the democratic nominee, this was all rigged, You all thought this race would be a cake walk and she thought her coronation was inevitable. Yah, right!

    Reply
    1. Michael McDaniel October 7, 2015

      Joe you have not kept up on the facts. If you have you are then a liar!!

  8. Clinton Bradford October 26, 2015

    Can I tell you something really interesting that is worth paying attention. A simple and excellent online opportunity to work for those people who want to utilise their free time so that they can make some extra money using their computers… I have been working on this for last two and half years and I am making 60-90 dollar/ hour … In the past week I have earned 13,70 dollars for almost 20 hours sitting ….

    Skills of any special kind, Degree or Specific qualification is not required for this, just keyboard typing and a good working and reliable internet connection ….

    Time Limits to start work is not required … You may do this work at any time when you willing to do it ….

    How I have been working on this?…..….see this [Iink] on my` `!Profile!` to know` more` about this`

    jkjhk

    Reply
  9. A_Real_Einstein February 19, 2016

    What I do not understand is why is she under a federal investigation under a democratic administration?

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.