Twice-failed candidate for president Hillary Clinton craves the spotlight much like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) craves the undivided personal attention of Chinese honey traps, and unfortunately for the sanity of those who are all too familiar with her checkered past, the mainstream media usually gives it to her.
Such has been the case over the last month or so as Hillary and daughter Chelsea Clinton have been on a media tour of sorts to promote their upcoming Apple TV+ docuseries, “Gutsy.” Most recently, Hillary Clinton sat down for an “interview” with CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell, where predictably there was much gushing and much revising of history as it related to Clinton’s sordid political track record.
As is often the case with Clinton, however, she didn’t confine her revisionism to the TV news airwaves. As we previously reported, she also took to the Twitter machine Tuesday to post a lie-filled rant in an attempt to debunk comparisons of her email scandal to the FBI’s raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.
“As Trump’s problems continue to mount, the right is trying to make this about me again. There’s even a ‘Clinton Standard.’ The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified,” Clinton falsely claimed.
“Comey admitted he was wrong after he claimed I had classified emails. Trump’s own State Department, under two different Secretaries, found I had no classified emails,” she also falsely claimed.
As we noted with all the receipts, Clinton was playing fast and loose with the facts about what Comey said and what he found and of course, she threw some word games into the mix because that’s just what she does.
But Hillary Clinton’s suggestion of a “Clinton Standard” caught the attention of Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote perhaps what is the definitive takedown of her latest “but my emails” defense and pointed out that there is indeed a “Clinton Standard,” but that it’s not the one she wants people to think it is:
A 2018 Department of Justice inspector general report revealed “81 email chains containing approximately 193 individual emails” were “classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time.” Clinton is echoing her allies’ recent spin that there were only three documents with classification markings among 33,000 emails. It is utter nonsense.
[…]
Nevertheless, the emails had classified information, including top-secret information tied to “Special Access Programs.” Yet some allies emphasize the inspector general also noted that in some cases there was “conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material.” It failed. The emails still contained classified information.
That’s why she was reckless to use her own server: Such mistakes on private servers are more vulnerable to capture by foreign intelligence services. Indeed, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information through the emails of Clinton’s associates and aides.
As to her claims about Comey “admitting” he was wrong:
It’s not clear what Hillary is referencing here. But Comey never said there was no classified information in her emails — he said the opposite. He condemned her handling of the classified material while saying it didn’t warrant prosecution.
Comey did backtrack later, but not on this point. He said his “mistake” was in how he described her conduct: “I should’ve worked harder to find a way to convey that it’s more than just the ordinary mistake, but it’s not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that.”
And on the “Clinton Standard” – it’s a double standard, as we all know, and which Turley emphasized in his write-up.
“Clinton has repeatedly avoided criminal charges even as close associates were charged,” Turley reminded readers as he brought up her cattle futures scandal, the long-running Whitewater scandal – where the Clintons obstructed and avoided justice on multiple occasions, and again the email scandal, for starters. Though many around her suffered legal consequences from those scandals, in the end it was always “no charge” for Hillary Clinton, who proclaims to be a proponent of powerful officials being held accountable for their actions except when it comes to her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Perhaps as equally disturbing have been all the passes granted to the Clintons by the media on all of the above and then some, which is precisely why Clinton and most other Democrats believe they can go before the cameras and lie to the American people with impunity:
Fortunately, the days of the mainstream media being able to get away with painting false narratives and allowing Democrats to skate by when they’re behaving badly are over thanks to New Media. That way, even though people like Hillary Clinton may be able to avoid having to account for their actions in a court of law, they can still be judged (and found lacking) in the court of public opinion.
As for Turley, say a quick prayer for his safety because, well, I don’t think I have to explain why such things are necessary when it comes to criticisms of – and the wrongdoings of – the Clintons.
No comments:
Post a Comment