THE NOTHING-THERE HILARY CLINTON EMAIL "SCANDAL"

Will we now see the end of the coverage of Hillary Clinton's email "scandal" in which there is no there there? Don't count on it. This is Whitewater all over again. Remember the hearings in the House are supposed to be about Benghazi. I guess Republicans won't be satisfied until they find the deleted email in which Clinton personally ordered the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Jayne O'Donnell at USA Today:

The Justice Department said in a court filing this week that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was allowed to delete personal emails from her personal server.
 ....

"There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," the Justice Department's civil division attorneys wrote.

Lest you think I am so wedded to Clinton's candidacy that I can't form an unbiased opinion, please know that my favorite candidate is Bernie Sanders, but I will surely vote for Clinton, if she is the nominee. It seems pretty clear to me that Clinton as "uppity" woman plays into the coverage of her of campaign.

The so-called liberal media, especially the New York Times, appears to have a grudge against Clinton for reasons I can't fathom. Negative, biased coverage has been the rule from the beginning of her candidacy, and I find it despicable. The NYT, in particular, should issue a public apology to Hillary Clinton for the inaccuracies in their stories and for continuing to pound away at the email "scandal". Let's not forget it was "The Newspaper of Record" that gave us Judith Miller and her lying sources about WMD in the runup to the Iraq War. The newspaper's decline began a long time ago.

UPDATE: The story about Clinton's exoneration by the Justice Department finally appeared in the NYT yesterday, but I don't see an apology to Clinton. I note the newspaper included in the article Bryan Pagliano's statement that he would take the Fifth if the House committee subpoenaed him, although that news had been reported in the paper earlier on Sept. 3. Why? To imply that there was still something sinister going on with the emails? Oddly enough, the Times was not in any great hurry to report on the statements by the Justice Dept.