Unbelievably bad reporting on the Clinton e-mail "scandal"

[BzaDem]

17. Both articles make great points.

The first article discusses at length how if ANY other high level state department official (or high-level officials of many other departments) had the same scrutiny, they would be looking just as "bad." It is also notable how bad the security/retention is of the official system. I recall Kerry at one point saying how they all just assume the Russians are reading everything they put on their own unclassified system.

As for the second article... I knew there was something fishy about Comey not giving an exact number of e-mails actually marked classified. He talks about how the distinction doesn't really matter as far as the law goes, but it certainly matters as far as HRC's credibility goes. She limited her statements to e-mails that were marked classified, which was sensible given the tens of thousands of e-mails in question, and how ambiguous classification can be. When he gives an exact number of every other type of mail (broken down by classification levels and time of classification), but simply says "a very small number" for the actual question that goes to her credibility, he's likely hiding something.

And sure enough, it turns out the "very small number" was 2! 2 mails that were improperly marked with merely a (c), classified at the confidential level (which apparently any phone number would be classified at).

I could imagine that some of the coverage yesterday would have been different (at least on the point of her credibility), if he was as specific about that as he was about every other numerical detail.