New York Times Editorial Board Calls On Republicans To "Shut Down The Benghazi Committee"

[karynnj]

8. Nothing in the NYT article does any of those things

It speaks of ending the investigation of Benghazi. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/shut-down-the-benghazi-committee.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Here are things it does NOT do:
1) It does not state that the committee was their source on the email.
2) It does not state that the issues over email are a non- scandal



As to 1), having read the first NYT article, my guess for who the NYT had as an initial source (when I first read it) was either someone on the Clinton team or someone who was working for the State Department. Why?

The fact was that the SD was soon to give the committee a large group of emails that were from her server and they were processing the huge paper dump of emails. They also knew that the committee had seen the hacked emails from Blumenthal - that did not, as the SD could have done - redact the actual email address. It is very likely that had the NYT NOT disclosed the server -- the committee itself was very likely to figure it out and make it an issue. Getting the information out WITH the additional info that the State Department already had everything was better for HRC then if the committee put it out - especially had they been able to do that before she gave up the email.

As to the State Department, it is possible that the they did not know immediately that HRC had not made any provisions (as Kerry was doing from day one) to insure that all work related emails from any address were saved. (Not using state.gov would not preclude having a process to in a timely way move the email to the government.) It seems like it took almost a year before they took actions to get the Clinton email.

One guess might be that some State Department people who "negotiated" to get the email did so because they did not want to be part of a cover up. They might have had their own interest in getting the story out that showed they did push to get the email from the former SoS.

2) Calling the email issue a non-scandal does not change that the fact that she never intended the State Department to have her emails - even though there were FOIA even when she was SoS that should have applied to them. Though she cites other SoS, no one had their own server and no one used email to the extent she did.