The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.The FBI, investigates this, and the FBI investigates that, but no officials at the FBI are named, and a further quote in the article states in another throwaway line:
A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials. (My emphasis)The information from the FBI seems to be leaks from sources who insist on anonymity, which, of course, does not mean that the information is untrue, but a close reading of the article provides no further clue about the specifics of what Clinton is supposed to have done wrong, except that she used a private email account while she was Secretary of State. Note: Colin Powell used a private email account while he was Secretary of State.
Which makes me wonder why the WP concludes that the private account is:
...a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.What am I missing? The "major issue" looks very much like Whitewater, a scheme in which the Clintons lost money, but which triggered a major investigation by Ken Starr, costing $50 million that concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" of wrongdoing by the Clintons. Try as I might, I never understood Whitewater, and, thus far, I don't understand why the private email system is a "major issue", except that Republicans and the vast media conspiracy against the Clintons wish to make it so.
The article in the WP had nothing in the way of evidence of wrongdoing by Hilary Clinton, but the implication was there. The story follows on the heels of the New York Times story linking Clinton to a "criminal investigation", which was filled with inaccuracies, and which the NYT took its sweet time to correct until cries of outrage became impossible to ignore.
Also in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank opines on Clinton's private email system.
Clinton, lacking a sparring partner other than the socialist Bernie Sanders, has reverted to her instincts for secrecy and a distrust of the media that borders on paranoia. And the media, in the absence of the back-and-forth of a competitive primary, have taken on the role of opposition. Clinton’s insularity and the media’s prosecutorial zeal feed each other — as they have for nearly a quarter-century.Whoa! If a top Clinton aide, who remains anonymous, dismisses Bernie Sanders, then the Clinton campaign needs to rethink its strategy. Does the fact that Sanders is a socialist make him the equivalent of a potted plant, with the result that Clinton has no sparring partner? He's striking the right chord with a number of people, and, were I in charge of the Clinton campaign, I'd take Sanders more seriously. In truth, I think the campaign leadership is somewhat alarmed by Sanders' candidacy, but they see attacking him head on as a strategy likely to do more harm than good and choose rather to pretend he's not a real challenge. On the other hand, according to Milbank, if Joe Biden entered the race, he'd be a serious contender, and Clinton would be forced to pay attention, but Biden won't, thus it's Clinton against the media. Make what you will of this logic, and count me dubious about the Clinton campaign's longing for "a viable primary opponent".
“It feels sometimes like the primary is Hillary against the media,” a top Clinton aide told me Tuesday, one of several in Clinton’s orbit who said the candidate would be better off with a viable primary opponent.
Rather than label Hilary Clinton paranoid about the media, I'd call her realistic. Even supposedly left-wing media sources have failed miserably in their reporting and writing about the "scandals" of Bill and Hilary Clinton for years. Yes, there was a major scandal in the Monica Lewinsky affair, for which Bill Clinton was duly impeached, and which was widely reported and commented upon by the media. But there were a number of trumped up scandals besides Whitewater, such as the suggestion that Hilary Clinton murdered or had Vince Foster murdered and covered up the murder with the suicide story, which, in itself is enough to make a person wary of the press.
Why continue to bang the drums about Benghazi and the private email account? I don't understand, unless the press wants to keep the stories alive, just in case there is a real story which has not yet surfaced. Why not investigate further and report on a real story, if there is a story to report?
UPDATE: More from the AP.
The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press. (My emphasis)Bullshit again. The only persons named in the article are Inspector General Charles McCullough and Sen. Charles Grassley (whose commentary about Clinton should always be suspect), and their quoted words are quite brief and without context. Note the could in the paragraph above. The other sources are anonymous "officials", "an auditor", and "the intelligence community"? Who in the intelligence community is leaking information and why? There is no there there, so far as I can see, and reporters should wait until they have real information to impart before they submit articles for publication, and the editor(s) should say, "This is bullshit. Give me a story I can publish." Of course, that does not happen in today's media.
Still, the developments suggested that the security of Clinton's email setup and how she guarded the nation's secrets will remain relevant campaign topics. (My emphasis)Why? Only because reporters continue to publish non-stories about Hillary Clinton "scandals", about what could be and what is suggested by sources who are not named, which is not news and which anyone with half a brain can see is more bullshit.
