Thursday, December 3, 2015


Here’s Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clinton’s New Emails

The Fiscal Times
Here’s Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clinton’s New Emails
View photo
Here’s Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clinton’s New Emails
If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times … Hillary Clinton told the media not just once but several times that her secret e-mail server did not transmit or store sensitive or classified information.
The Clinton e-mail story broke in March when The New York Times provided the first public notice that the former Secretary of State had exclusively used a personal server for her electronic communications rather than an official and secured government e-mail system – a fact that only came to light through a congressional investigation into the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi.
Related: Hillary Clinton’s 5 Big Privacy Issues (Before the Emails)
For four years, the State Department had told Congress and federal courts reviewing FOIA petitions that Secretary Clinton had sent no e-mails responsive to their demands, thanks to the subterfuge of Clinton’s system and the obstruction of legitimate oversight that it produced.
Once The Times exposed Clinton’s unauthorized e-mail system, the rest of the national media pursued the story with surprising vigor, a level more associated with alleged Republican misconduct. In a press conference five days later, Clinton faced the most skeptical media scrutiny she had received in years. When reporters wondered how a Secretary of State and her high-ranking aides could conduct State Department business on an unsecured and unauthorized e-mail system without violating laws regarding the handling of sensitive and classified material, Clinton insisted that the issue had never come up.
“I did not email any classified material to anyone one my email,” Clinton insisted. “There is no classified email.” Furthermore, to questions about the kind of security applied to keep hackers and foreign intelligence services from gaining access to her communications, Clinton offered up a non-sequitur that demonstrated her lack of competence on the subject. “Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office,” she replied, “and it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches.”
Related: How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run
The question didn’t relate to physical security, however; it was a question of security against hackers, not burglars. Authorized government systems have significant security safeguards against electronic intrusion, but subsequent revelations showed that Clinton and her team didn’t even bother to use basic encryption techniques for months – and that was the least of the security issues. Gawker’s Sam Biddle reported on the lack of effort applied to security even before the presser, with their analysts aghast at the recklessness of Clinton’s approach.
For a while, at least, they weren’t alone in that assessment. The national media stayed on the scandal as the Clinton campaign kept arguing that it had become old news. The media scrutiny intensified when two Inspectors General from the intelligence community determined that two e-mails on the system contained Top Secret and Compartmented information, among the highest classifications that exist. They kept track as the State Department released the Clinton server e-mails under court order while redacting them to block classified information from exposure. When the FBI began and then intensified its probe into the Clinton server, the media kept their attention on it as well…for a while.
This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton’s claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now.
Oddly, though, the media outlet that broke the story didn’t seem interested in pursuing that aspect of it. The New York Times report on the latest tranche didn’t bother to mention that any e-mails had been classified. Its lead on the release instead noted that one e-mail which had been previously considered classified had been declassified for this release…which presumably kept Clinton from hitting 1,000 refutations to her claims.
The rest of the media didn’t take much more of an interest in the implications of this development, either. Most of the focus fell on Philippe Reines’ effort to get advice from the NFL for Clinton’s “cracked head,” as she self-effacingly described her concussion and its aftermath. Others found it amusing that Clinton was a fan of the TV series Homeland but didn’t recall which channel to watch for it. Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton’s credibility.
This lack of interest seems to be of a piece with the narrative that emerged in late October, after the Democrats’ first presidential debate and Clinton’s testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. They rushed to declare that time frame “the best ten days of the Clinton campaign,” even though as Marco Rubio pointed out in a subsequent debate , the testimony actually demonstrated that Clinton lied about Benghazi.
In an e-mail uncovered in the scandal, she told her family within hours of the attack on the consulate that it was an organized terrorist operation, while insisting for the next two weeks that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure YouTube video.
Still, ever since then the narrative has had Clinton recovering her bearings and moving past the e-mail scandal even as the FBI probe continues and more classified information is redacted. The collective yawn from the media after this week’s release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department’s performance.
Just imagine the media’s curiosity if Clinton actually won the election. Perhaps the best reason to vote Republican in 2016 is to allow the media to resume its stated mission of holding government accountable and holding the powerful responsible for their actions.


  1. The media stopped reporting because America is tired of hearing about Hillary's damn emails. And Kevin McCarthy has let the cat out of the bag William. It is a political witch hunt and most of America is tired of the bullshit, tired of the inaction of a congress that is absorbed in destroying opponents. NOBODY CARES WILLIAM

    1. I care ric. Trey Gowdy cares. Those families who had their loved ones killed care ric.

    2. You care, not really you just want Hillary brought down at least to the level where a repub can beat her. Trey Gowdy is looking for brownie points for his bogus investigation. The victims families have stated several times to respect their losses and stop the nonsense.

  2. "Hillary Clinton was asked during a campaign event on Thursday whether the women who have accused her husband of sexual assault should be believed.


    “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones?” an unidentified woman asked Clinton. “Should we believe them as well?”

    “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved on evidence,” Clinton responded. The Democratic presidential front-runner then rested a microphone in her lap and smiled to applause from the crowd.

    Jones sued former President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994. Willey is a former White House volunteer who said in 1998 that Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1993, and Broaddrick in 1999 accused Clinton of raping her nearly two decades earlier."

  3. The New York Times:
    The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack. Did the administration report it to the committee? No, they claim they didn't know. Pretty hard to believe no one in the administration didn't notice the HillaryClinton did not have a .gov or whatever the government email is tagged. How pathetic the media and the party are willing to accept a person that lies consistently and has zero integrity. More pathetic is the party would accept a person that lies without integrity. This demonstrates that this country no longer demands the best as a president but who will give them more. America is still exceptional. Exceptionally stupid.

    The media has failed for over 4 years, to discover the only email account Hillary Clinton used as Secretary of State, this same worthless, partisan media has spent 4 full years alternately mocking, ignoring, and dismissing as Old News! the ongoing Republican investigation into the fatal September 11th anniversary attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    If Republicans weren’t determined to discover the full truth about that fatal 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack — a scandal the media actively helped President Obama cover-up until he was safely re-elected — Americans would never know about Hillary’s secret email account.

    Did the Media break the IRS scandal. No if you remember they outed themselves with a planted question. Which triggered the investigation.

    1. The Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records? No, the Associated Press didn’t even break that story. Like the IRS, we only found out because the Justice Department outted itself in a letter notifying the AP of what it had done

      Benghazi, like Rick, the media has spent the last eight months attacking those seeking the truth (Congress, Fox News)–not seeking the truth. It was the GOP congress that demanded the email exchanges concerning the shaping of the talking points, not the media.

      The GOP did itself a great injustice when then tossed Nixon. They should have been more like today's democrats, blocking and ignoring everything. They should have shut the media out instead of cooperating.

      The Media once was the source for information to the American people. Today it's become as arm of the progressive party doing it's best to ensure a democrat is elected to the WH. Doesn't matter if that candidate has lies her ass off. Blocked the GOP from getting to the truth. Doesn't matter to the Democrats that the media ignores scandals, lies, flip flopping of their beloved Hillary.

      I find it sad for America that the same democrats that said experience doesn't matter when electing Obama now say this isn't a time for an outsider. They claim they need an experienced president. Not a president that has integrity, not a president that hasn't consistently lied time after time. The media has followed lock step with Hillary, refused to challenge her on anything as they continue with our marshmallow leader. The party that claimed the GOP to be run by old white people, now support the old white party called the democratic party.

      Hats off to one person in the media, CNN’s Drew Griffin, who broke the Veterans Administration scandal. Since then largely ignored by the media.

      Clinton scandal goes away as soon as the media can pretend a Republican engaged in overreach or a nobody GOP candidate in a flyover state commits a War On Women gaffe.
      What's sad even today no one in the media has ever said, “Gee, Hillary is running for president. I think I’ll go through her email archive as Secretary of State.” Only 1 news out let reports on the emails as they are dumped on Friday after 5PM, Fox News. The left claim Fox is biased. The question, why is the media biased with their non reporting of the news.

      Rick claim people are tired of Benghazi, which may be true. Don;t we the American people deserve a president that does not lie day after day, change position with every poll and a media that reports the activity on that candidate with out bias.

    2. "Don;t we the American people deserve a president that does not lie day after day, change position with every poll and a media that reports the activity on that candidate with out bias."

      Alright, it's study break time. Final test this week. This is a theme I post as often as Republicans launch Benghazi investigations. Why do we deserve the POTUS you ask for? With the advent of cable news, and talk radio, we now have the ability to find a news source that shapes every piece of news to our preconceived views of the world. Take the speech by Obama last night. Read a few stories by liberal media, and then go read Breitbart. It doesn't matter what your political point of view is Lou, you can find a channel that will package every event in a comfortable to accept package.

      I question, a bit, a historical perspective that the media was a source of information to the people. I think it has always had a slant to it. The difference, I think, was that the commentators who delivered it were probably more moderate in their views. I don't like Hillary as a candidate, but if the biggest argument against her is that she lied about Benghazi and that somehow Benghazi is the biggest example of government fuck up, then the public is getting what it deserves when the media caters to the anger rather than giving us information that has bearing on our lives.

      The media did not do it's job in the run up to Iraq, and here we are again potentially ready to go into Syria. If we stopped people on the street and asked them to describe some of the principle players there, I bet we would get that blank stare we have all come to know. Simply the question and ask whether Obama is handling it right, and then people will light up and regurgitate what they have heard from their favorite media outlet.

      That Trump and Hillary are comfortably leading their respective races speaks volumes about the electorate, and it's not a pleasant picture.

    3. Here's the question of the year Max.

      Did she lie about Benghazi, the laughable video excuse? Apparently so with the email releases.
      Did she lie about her emails, personal server. Absolutely.
      Did she lie about sensitive information in her emails, apparently she did as more emails are released.
      Why did she wipe the server? Why did it take the FBI and a court order to retrieve it? Why didn't she as an upright law abiding citizen just turn it over with all information intact? Ever wonder why she went with a private server instead of the government service? The lies surrounding Benghazi and her email fiasco not to mention her shady dealing with her foundation while secretary of state should make every democrat think is this the person we want as president.
      But then again, your a bit to far down the road on that one.
      If she is elected her first executive order can be to give herself a pardon.

      Benghazi is but another example of our government in action. The media and the people's I don't give a shit attitude is most distressing.
      News can be packaged anyway you like. Pick an outlet, any outlet and you get anything from biased reporting to non reporting of the news. Most people do not take the time to look at multiple sources including international sources to validate information.

      As a side note, unless you live in a cave no kidding we have entered a new phase of terrorism as they bring it to our country as promised.. Finally Obama said Ft. Hood was terrorism and not workplace violence, the true beginning ignored by the media and the Prez.

      For the American people, ignorance is bliss.

    4. "But then again, your a bit to far down the road on that one."

      For at least the 100th time, she is not my choice. But, I concede, I think Benghazi is bullshit and for many, it's simply not allowed to believe the multiple hearings are farce and still not like Hillary as a candidate. To me, Hillary is a bad candidate for important reasons, such as she is a war hawk and I believe we will be in a ground war under her leadership. She is a Wall Street Democrat and I fully expect the revolving door to spinning quite swiftly if she is elected. I believe we will see more trickle down from her. The secretive stuff? Sadly, this is the new norm. I hardly find anything different in what she did and what went on for 8 years of Dick and Bush. It doesn't make hers acceptable, but again, we get what we deserve.

    5. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If your a parent relative wife of one of those killed in Benghazi, it probably has meaning.
      The reality of Benghazi is that what was really proven is Hillary has lied consistently which should be invaluable to the masses. But it isn't as Americans are pretty much self centered it's all about me kind of people.

      The server questions remain Max. Deny them if you would like, the reality is she has hidden the truth, lied, covered up. Seems Nixon left office from that one.

    6. What got Stevens killed, IMO, was hubris. As for how the families feel, neither of us can honestly say we know what they feel. We have had multiple hearings on this, and the theme that keeps popping back up is that there was no stand down order, and there was no blatant misconduct. With each new hearing, however, we find some new thing that isn't really related to Benghazi, but instead "speaks to the character" of Clinton. Sorry Lou, what I keep hearing in your message is what I keep hearing from Republicans, which is that endless government hearings are okay and indeed MUST be continued until all of America comes to a conclusion that Republicans want them to have, which is that Hillary is a lying bitch. It's not enough to simply not vote for her, because the likely hood is that the Republicans are going to put up another candidate who will not have any appeal to moderates let alone Democrats who really don't like Hillary for reasons that actually matter.

      I'm certainly not voting for her in the primaries and the only candidate who would guarantee my voting for her in the general would be Trump. If I'm self centered because I'm not buying the Benghazi crap, I guess I have to live with that. On the other hand, McCarthy made it abundantly clear what the goal of the hearings are. Much as I dislike the lying, I equally dislike the abuse of power to say Benghazi is important but then spend a lot of time and money trying to bring her down over a private email server. Sorry, I'm not driving that kool aide regardless of how much I dislike Hillary.