Pantsuit under the jitney

A friend forwarded me a link titled (by a Progressive friend of his) “Did you see this on Fox?“.

The link goes to the Huffington Post, where if you only read the headline:
Clinton Email Probe Finds No Deliberate Mishandling Of Classified Information,
it sounds as if Hillary’s misadventure with a technologically unsecured email server in a physically unsecured bathroom was just alright.

I guess the implication is that Fox News would suppress this story because Fox is biased. Somehow distinguishing Fox from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc..

The first paragraph of the story, however, is:

“A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.”

Full disclosure, I don’t watch any TV news or opinion shows whatsoever, so I did not see it on any network.

I had no trouble finding an answer about whether Fox covered it, however:
State Department completes internal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email, here and here.

All I needed to know, though, is in that first HuffPo paragraph; the State Department ran the investigation of the State Department regarding the former Secretary of State‘s email peccadillo which they claim “employees” didn’t notice, while the State Department has inexplicable, continuing difficulty in locating information responsive to FOIA demands – about which those State Department “employees” certainly had knowledge.

Oh, and this is the same former SecState currently accusing Democrat Presidential candidates of being Russian assets, who also thinks the Constitutional provision of an Electoral College is unconstitional.

So, parsing that opening HuffPo sentence:
1- Hillary Clinton was not a “department employee.” She was a presidential appointee. She wasn’t exonerated along with the peons.

2- We know classified information passed through that server. Some of it in back-and-forth with “employees.”

3- The State Department investigated the career civil servants in their employ and found no intentional wrongdoing involving the incontestably deliberate installation by Hillary Clinton of a begging-to-be-hacked server that necessarily mishandled everything passing through it.

We know those civil servants knew they were using a non “.gov” email address… as did the President at the time. In violation of policy.

So we cannot go there.

Laughable. Under the jitney, Ms. Pants Suit. The conclusion can only be: All these career naifs were duped by Hillary.

I’m having trouble understanding why a Progressive Hillary booster would want any coverage of this at all.

In the interest of balance, I wonder if Rachel Maddow will mention this (Oct 21, 2019):
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up

“Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal…”

The State Department has participated in, even orchestrated, the cover up since before we knew about Hillary’s illicit server. They’ve been deliberately mishandling that information for over 5 years.

It’s their asses they need to cover. Not Hillary’s.

Since she’s, thank God, not President.

A Phish Called John

How John Podesta’s email was hacked.

Oh, those dastardly Russian phishing trawlers. Hillary lost the election because they used an ultra-sophisticated hacking program only a State-sponsored entity could deploy. Then they used mind control rays to get Podesta’s aide to click on a suspicious link.

A 10 year old script kiddie could have pulled this off, even if he wasn’t a Nigerian Prince.

And, let’s not forget that what Podesta’s emails mainly revealed was the actual rigging of an American election by the DNC: The Democratic primaries. It’s why Debbie Wosname Schultz resigned as DNC Chairman.

Hacking the easy things first

There are suggestions by the CIA that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s email for the purpose of helping Trump win the election. The FBI disagrees. The CIA also apparently claims the Republican National Committee was hacked, but the Russians deliberately withheld release of any information gathered by that hack.

Reince Priebus denies the RNC was hacked, and says that after conferring with the FBI.

An alternative explanation for the hack of the DNC and Podesta is that some entity other than Russia easily found the means to get into those servers via Hillary Clinton’s unprotected private server. There’s more public evidence pointing to that than there is to the Russians.

Update: Dec 13 10:50AM
Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking

Advantage Sanders

Dem sen: Sanders has no ‘interest in foreign policy’

Democratic senator and top Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill bashed rival Bernie Sanders on the day of the Iowa caucus as lacking the foreign policy chops needed to serve as commander-in-chief…

“He doesn’t have experience and hasn’t shown a great deal of interest in foreign policy, hasn’t really demonstrated the breadth and depth of knowledge you need to lead this country at a dangerous time.”

McCaskill has a point. Mrs. Bill’s interest in sharing state secrets with foreign intelligence agencies is well documented, and we are in a dangerous time.

Thanks, in no small part, to Mrs. Bill.

If only she’d shown a lack of interest in foreign policy, our national security wouldn’t be compromised, Libya wouldn’t be breeding ISIS, four Americans might not have died in Benghazi and she wouldn’t be on the verge of indictment.

At this point

Official: Some Clinton emails ‘too damaging’ to release

The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

I find it hard to believe that emails intelligence experts declare ““too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances” can possibly be evidence of mere internecine bureaucratic catfights.

Mrs. Bill says I’m mistaken: Hillary Campaign: Withholding of Emails Just ‘Over-Classification Run Amok’

Hillary Clinton’s campaign insisted today that the former secretary of State wants the release of more than 20 emails determined to have contained top-secret information, calling the withholding “over-classification run amok.”

Indeed: What difference, at this point, does it make? Any interested foreign intelligence services already read them.

It’s a vast intelligence agency conspiracy.