Heat on Hillary’s emails
The revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email system are growing more troubling for the left, and in a way more puzzling. For example, we have this article in The New York Times, which seems to be leading the attacks. The headline is “Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests” (on Benghazi, no less), and if that isn’t the sort of thing you might read in some conservative periodical I don’t know what is.
The reason for the Times going after Hillary like this can’t be the mere need for intellectual consistency because the left went after people on the right who used private email. Lack of consistency has never bothered the Times before, nor has the need to print the truth.
I aired some theories on their motivation yesterday, mostly amounting to their desire to get out in front of the story at the outset and let it blow over. But this “thwarting” accusation seems more serious than anything that’s been said before. Is the Times actually turning on Hillary, and if so why? Do they know something we don’t, some other more serious problems that could emerge later, after she’s nominated, and spoil Democrats’ chances in 2016? Are they trying to forestall her nomination entirely?
My alternate explanation is an admittedly Byzantine one. Back in 2012 I mentioned that I thought Clinton had become Obama’s SOS with the idea that he would back her in 2016, but that Obama being Obama he couldn’t be trusted to actually follow through. Could he be sabotaging her now, letting the Times know that he doesn’t want her as his successor, and thus releasing the attack? It seems far-fetched, but the entire thing is so odd that it’s one of the few possibilities I can come up with. Maybe Hillary has some goods on him, and he’s afraid she’ll spill the beans, and he wants to discredit her? Or maybe she disagrees on his course in Iran, and he’s afraid she won’t continue his glorious legacy the way Liz Warren would?
At any rate, you can find some good pieces about Hillary’s email situation in the listings at Memeorandum.
My guess is that Obama has, through ‘back channels’ quietly put the word out that he would favor someone else as the democrat’s nominee in 2016. As evidence, I point once again to the 300 former Obama staffers that signed on to a letter to Sen. Warren urging her to run in 2016. It’s simply not credible to imagine that 300 former Obama staffers would do that without first checking with Obama and getting the word back that he approves.
I think it’s a case of the liberal establishment having determined that Hillary has too many serious issues to win the presidency in 2016 – and to increase her replacement’s chances, it’s best she’s finished off sooner rather than later.
Iowahawk is on the case this morning with:
“David Burge â€@iowahawkblog
Remember when the NYT and WaPo set up entire websites to crowdsource Sarah Palin’s emails? Good times.”
Are the Clinton’s leaking all this information? It is too early for the Republicans to do this (They should wait till the summer or fall of 2016). Any Democratic candidates would wait until everyone has declared and the primary season has started. By leaking now, they can claim this fall or early next year that the issue has been investigated and is no longer relevant. Just a thought.
There’s also the boozing, clearly noted by Amy Chozick who covers Hillary for the NY Times. Asked in an ABC interview a week or so ago about the one thing that has surprised her about Hillary, she said:
Hmm. She likes to drink. We were on the campaign trail in 2008 and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in Pennsylvania. Um, no.
Yeah, someone on the Left is out to get Hillary.
Most coverage I’ve seen so far has focused on Hillary violating the Records Act, basically, how Hillary was protecting herself.
I think the bigger issue is the way she has treated classified information, *not* protecting America’s secrets. A commenter at Instapundit made this point well:
“I think focusing on the accountability issue misses the much larger security angle: for four years, every single email the US Sec’y of State sent, received, or was copied on went through a server not controlled or secured by the government. Every single one, as Clinton never at any time had a government email address. Do you suppose that at least once in those four years such an email contained highly classified information? What security did the Clintonemail.com mail server have? Were there intrusions? Is the server backed up offsite, and if so where are those archives located and how are they secured? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I’m concerned that I’m not seeing anyone else even ask.
The entirety of Sec’y Clinton’s electronic correspondence, including attachments, was processed, stored, and administered by persons unknown who very likely didn’t have the clearance to even know that it existed, much less have complete access to the contents. Forget the White House, Hilary Clinton should be sharing a cell with Chelsea Manning. And for the same reason.”
We’ll have to see if this ever occurs to someone in the MSM…
Hillary’s minuses as a candidate add up to quite a list.
Here’s a short one:
1. Money from foreign corporations funneled into the Clinton family trust during her stint as SoS.
2. Using a private e-mail account to do government business.
3. Her affinity for booze.
4. Her tendency to self-aggrandize.
5. Her health issues.
6. Benghazi.
7. Her inability to present a likable image to voters and book buyers.
For a much longer list, some of which may be actually be true, see; “Blood Feud” by Ed Klein.
Many believe Hillary is inevitable. I think she is damaged goods. The dems are beginning to recognize that as well.
J.J.,
An item for my list: pretending that she speaks for me because she is a woman. I kind of like women who bake cookies for their kids.
Pingback:On Hillary Clinton and EmailGateAmerican Patriot | American Patriot
More troubling for the left? “Law schmaw!” Nothing would trouble these “people” up to and including an Obama or Clinton dictatorship, and reeducation camps for non-progressives.
These people are effen clinically insane.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0
Take these comments from the latest NYT article on Clinton’s activities. And these are New York Times readers:
or
emphasis added
And 22 people recommended Issy’s sentiments.
“Many believe Hillary is inevitable. I think she is damaged goods. The dems are beginning to recognize that as well.” J.J.
I too think she’s damaged goods and I imagine everyone else here does as well. The reason why I am not as sanguine about her negatives is because the electorate has already proven willing to vote for damaged goods in a President… twice.
And lets not kid ourselves, in 2008 there were enough democrat and MSM dismissals of the indications of what Obama’s damaged goods consisted for anyone to know who wished to, America was willfully blind because he was a black democrat and here was the first chance to finally prove that we had risen above racism.
And that is why they voted for him in 2012 because to do otherwise was, for the left, an implicit admission of racism.
expat: “pretending that she speaks for me because she is a woman. I kind of like women who bake cookies for their kids.”
Just so.
Here’s a tidbit from VDH: “Women’s issues? We learn that women on Senator Clinton’s staff once made considerably less than their male counterparts.” He has other reasons why Hillary has much negative baggage, here:
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-liberal-circus/#ixzz3TSomkc6o
G.B., yes, the sheeple can be herded, but Hillary is not a fresh, clean, well-spoken candidate with a hazy past. She is, by the lights of the important young voters, not so well-spoken, not so congenial, and her past is much better defined than Obama’s ever was or will be.
Isn’t it funny that the least plausible explanation is that the NYT is trying to do good, unbiased journalism?
If a lower lever employee used “outside” email they would (and should) be fired for breaking the rules.
As the top dog she should have been the one enforcing the rules; not the one breaking them – so, nope, I can’t and don’t want to trust her in the oval office if she can’t follow rules.
And I feel like we have to remind feminists who are quick to play the sexist card (like Obama supporters play the racist card) that we’ve got nothing against a woman in the oval office – just not THAT woman in the oval office.
I commend the intellectual acuity of the post and the many comments. But it is a sad state for our republic when our best and brightest advocates for action constantly hesitate and second-guess over the quality of reported information and over the motivations for the disclosures.
The former secretary of state clearly broke the law, there should be multiple drumbeat demands for a special prosecutor coming from media outlets — yet we all have been conditioned into repeated whining that these drumbeats only happen when conservatives appear to stray.
Since there are no appropriate consequences for bad actors on the left, we feebly wallow in the reasons why and the obvious unfairness — and the conservative agenda falters. Let’s just keep ripping HRC and Obama for monumental foreign policy disasters. The House GOP gets high marks for having Netanyahu’s address, I suggest Daniel Hannan next.