So we've now gone from "it was allowed under the rules" to

[leveymg]

79. Some basic research (and journalistic integrity) by MSM should have long ago revealed HRCs lies.

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 09:58 AM - Edit history (2)

We did it here at DU for free, without a budget. The corporate media refused to do it in order to protect their jobs and salaries.

Along with the cheerleading for the Iraq War, this points out the utter corruption of both major parties and the stenographic press.

A good example of this is Dan Abrams, a high-profile legal analyst who has been on the ABC payroll and now edits LawNewz. Abrams has in recent days published a scathing critique of Hillary's account.
http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-emails-now-might-finally-take-her-down/

As recently as February, however, Abrams was still misrepresenting the law to protect HRC. What changed?

In February, Abrams was arguing that 18 USC Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act doesn't fit in a potential prosecution of Hillary because, he claimed, that statute wasn't intended to be applied to high officials. He omitted mention that other heads of agency who retained, removed or shared classified materials without authorization -- CIA Directors Petraeus (2012) and Deutch (1996) -- were found chargable under that same section of the Espionage Act, even if they pled down (Petraeus) or the AG allowed the case to expire with the result of a Presidential pardon (Deutch). See, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

I don't think Abrams was being entirely honest, or was simply badly informed, and the Clintonites still seize on the argument he made. He's smart enough to read the statute and has a budget do some accurate historical research. Without an explanation from him, we must conclude Dan has realized the gig is up for Hillary and is now singing a different tune.

Maybe, it's simply that he's not working for ABC.