HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Another NY Newspaper Edit...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:06 PM

Another NY Newspaper Editorial Board Raises Questions about Hillary/IG Report

(Yes, the NYPost is Conservative but many in the NY Metropolitan Area and New Jersey read it. Plus the NYDaily News Editorial Board and the NYT also have come out against Hillary over the IG Report's findings.)

------------

Team Hillary’s Latest Email Lie --By Post Editorial Board

May 31, 2016 | 8:24pm

If one lie doesn’t serve, try another: That’s clearly the idea behind the Hillary Clinton campaign’s response to last week’s blistering review of her email scandal.

The report from the State Department inspector general notes multiple violations of law in her use of a home server and private email.

But her campaign chairman, John Podesta, calls the IG’s work wonderful news for Hillary — because it “gets us one step closer to resolving” the issue. That is, to having Emailgate fade into history, with Clinton paying no price for her simple, uh, “mistake.”

After all, anyone can accidentally set up a secret email server at home and use it to hide government correspondence, even after being warned it’s illegal, right?

Yet Podesta might wind up “correct” in thinking Hillary will get a pass. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time she and Bill got away with hiding digital correspondence.

As Paul Sperry noted in Sunday’s Post, the Clinton White House “lost” a huge trove of subpoenaed emails in 1999 — as it faced probes of Whitewater, Travelgate and other scandals involving Hillary.

Back then, the White House blamed a “glitch” in a computer server. And, at the center of that affair (dubbed “Project X” internally): a young aide named Cheryl Mills.

That’s right: the same Cheryl Mills who served as Hillary’s aide when she used her home server — and who oversaw Team Hillary’s deletion of 32,000 of the emails stored there.


Clinton insisted those emails were just personal — but several (recovered from other sources) have proven directly relevant to her State business, including emails about her refusal to adhere to State rules on email security.

Like Clinton, Mills refused to cooperate with the IG’s investigation.

Podesta might prove right, if the Obama Justice Department opts to whitewash the lawbreaking to protect Clinton’s White House bid. Or he may prove wrong — if the voters decide they’ve had enough of history repeating itself.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/team-hillarys-latest-email-lie/

32 replies, 3699 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Another NY Newspaper Editorial Board Raises Questions about Hillary/IG Report (Original post)
KoKo Jun 2016 OP
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #1
DURHAM D Jun 2016 #3
Fawke Em Jun 2016 #19
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #2
senz Jun 2016 #4
Merryland Jun 2016 #5
senz Jun 2016 #6
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #9
senz Jun 2016 #12
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #15
Fawke Em Jun 2016 #20
morningfog Jun 2016 #26
Segami Jun 2016 #25
Gregorian Jun 2016 #7
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #10
hellyall Jun 2016 #16
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #17
Fawke Em Jun 2016 #21
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #23
840high Jun 2016 #32
morningfog Jun 2016 #27
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #28
morningfog Jun 2016 #29
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #30
morningfog Jun 2016 #31
unc70 Jun 2016 #8
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #18
Fawke Em Jun 2016 #22
unc70 Jun 2016 #24
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #11
senz Jun 2016 #13
Uncle Joe Jun 2016 #14

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:09 PM

1. Why not link to Breitbart? Or Moonie Times

for that matter. Loving right wing papers seems to be in style with BoBs these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:17 PM

3. or Ruppert's WSJ ? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:46 PM

19. OK. How about the Chicago Tribune, then?

Democrats have something else that wakes them up screaming in the middle of the night: the prospect that the FBI will recommend charges against Clinton or her aides when it completes its own probe. If Clinton loses the FBI primary, Trump could have an unimpeded path to the White House.

For most of the past year, Democrats have been happily distracted by the GOP's apparent urge to blow itself up. They failed to notice they were walking into their own minefield without a map.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-president-clinton-trump-0601-jm-20160531-story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:09 PM

2. There was a connection I didn't know about -- history tries to repeat.

 

Cheryl had 7 lawyers for a civil deposition. The FBI interview must have been hysterical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:20 PM

4. Why do Hillies always ignore the message and attack the messenger?

 

Is it because that's ALL they have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:24 PM

5. yes, as Good Ship Hillary sinks slowly beneath the waves... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:27 PM

6. That is a lovely image.

 

Thank you, Merryland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:52 PM

9. Perhaps because the messengers have been

convicted of perjury, are considered Crazy Frank by their peers, or known right wing shills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:20 PM

12. Nah, they consider all Hill criticism "rightwing."

 

If it's an opinion piece, authorship should be taken into consideration. But content is still more important -- is it factual? Is it reason-based, logical? Does it make sense? Does it appeal to the reader's rational capacities? Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WhiteTara (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:49 PM

20. I didn't realize Jane was running for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:53 PM

26. You have to excuse the Clinton folk, they work on the 2 for 1 theory.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:45 PM

25. Hmm,....let's see....ok, I got it.....that's ALL they have!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:41 PM

7. But there are FBI agents who are going public if she gets a pass.

That's kind of a problem.

I read a post this morning that suggested she's trying to get into office before the indictments so she can quash them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:54 PM

10. I read a post a couple of days ago that

the FBI were investigating Sanders for influence peddling and that there is a DOJ investigation having to do with Burlington Collegegate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:32 PM

16. So you buy Republican pablum?

 

I'd look up the Toesnings, as soon as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hellyall (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:38 PM

17. This was in response to a post that said

you should use that kind of crap if it sounds logical to you. Just pointing out the stupidity of the thought.

Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:51 PM

21. Except that what hellyall said is correct.

I work in InfoSec and we work with the intelligence community quite a bit. Yes... they are planning to leak if she's given a pass.

There is no FBI investigation into Bernie or Jane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:58 PM

23. Is it allowed for the FBI to leak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:32 PM

32. A leak is guaranteed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:54 PM

27. No you didn't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:58 PM

28. Yes, I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:01 PM

29. I call bullshit. And projection.

 

I know you wish your candidate wasn't subject to a criminal investigation by the FBI. In fact i wish the same.

But making shit up is poor form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WhiteTara (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:30 PM

31. Thanks for confirming you are full of shit.

 

That link does not support your claim. Unless you have more, it is clear you are desperately projecting and wishing it wasn't your candidate subject to an actual FBI criminal investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:51 PM

8. New to me info on Mills

Had not heard that Cheryl Mills was part of the lost/deleted email problems in Clinton White House. And to think that Comey was one of the investigators seeking those records.

Things don't change much with the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:39 PM

18. It isn't the Clinton White House yet

but you get the idea that it will be in January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:53 PM

22. Uhhh.... she meant Bill Clinton's White House.

Hillary might end up in another Big House, all together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:41 PM

24. "1999 ... Whitewater ... Back then ... young Cheryl Mills"

Did you actually read even the OP? I don't need the snark.

For the record, I think the odds are dropping below 50% that there will be a HC WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:57 PM

11. I just note the increasing chorus

 

From editorial boards regardless of leaning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:21 PM

13. Yep, sort of like dominos falling.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:25 PM

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread