General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMichael Tomasky Take The Wind Out Of The Sails of Clinton Email-truthers
... The (NY Times) article says that there were new regulations that Clinton was supposed to abide by. It notes that one past secretary of state, Colin Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, sometimes used his personal email account before the new regulations went into effect.
A key question would seem to be this: When did the new regulations go into effect? Oddly, the Times article doesnt say. It doesnt pin the new regs down to a specific date or even year.
Now, I know enough about reporting to know how this works. If youve got an airtight case, then you lay it all out there. You include the date. Indeed you emphasize the date, you put it high up in your story. The fact that its not in there is a little fishy.
Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently werent fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Heres the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didnt issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use. A senior State Department official emailed me to say that in October 2014, a Department-wide notice was sent out which explained each employees responsibilities for records management. Consistent with 2013 NARA guidance, it included instructions that generally employees should not use personal email for the transaction of government business, but that in the very limited circumstances when it is necessary, all records must be forwarded to a government account or otherwise preserved in the Departments electronic records systems.
So if these new regulations went into effect after she left State, then what rule did she violate, exactly? And, if this is true, why did the Times not share this rather crucial piece of information with its readers? No one could possibly argue that this fact isnt germane to the story. Its absolutely central to it. Why would the Times leave it out?
The Times article says the existence of Mrs. Clintons personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi. This is incorrect. Gawker reported this first, in March 2013. At the time Clinton was Secretary, the Federal Records Act didnt require federal employees to use government accounts, only to preserve records of their communications. This, Clinton seems to have done.
This seems like a good time to remember another pattern of behavior: namely, that of the Times. I remember clear as a bell reading that initial Jeff Gerth story on Whitewater back in March 1992. It seemed devastating. It took many millions of dollars and many years and many phony allegations before important parts of Gerths reporting were debunked. But they were. The Clintons did nothing wrong on Whitewater except to be naïve enough to let themselves by chiseled by Jim McDougal.
If they had done something wrong, with all the prosecutorial firepower thrown at them by a prosecutor (Ken Starr) who clearly hated them, dont you think theyd have been indicted? Of course they would have been. But Starr couldnt turn anything up on Whitewater and was about to close down his investigation empty-handed until he got wind of a gal named Monica.
So thats a pattern too. The Times, for those with short memories, has never loved the Clintons. Remember Howell Raines and his ceaseless, thundering editorials against them. And today, it smells like the Times may have been rolled by the Republican staff of the Benghazi panel. And hey, great work by them and Chairman Trey Gowdy to use the nations leading liberal newspaper in this way.
Times has some questions to answer: Did you know that the new regs went into effect after Clinton left office? And if you didnt, why not? And if you did, why did you leave that fact out of the story? One can imagine Clinton coming up with decent answers to her questions, but its kind of hard to see how the Times can.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.html
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The same old rabid right wing is still there & begins the smear before Mrs Clinton even enters the 2016 race.
Did they role out this smear today to lessen the impact of her speech tonight about women's accomplishments, the same women the right wing loves to vaginally probe via SKYPE?
Or did they begin the smear today to lessen the blowback from Bibi's speech to the GOP Congress?
Hardball with Matthews has a few things to say about this subject. Stay tuned.
Hillary Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong but then this smear comes in mighty handy on a day when the right wing stands to lose some ground.
We've seen this game before.
Enjoy your evening among friends Mrs Clinton, I will be listening to your speech & continue forming my opinions about you by your own words, rather than the half truths of media sensationalsts and the talking points of those on the Right who fear your strength & support among voters.
Thanks for this post "dragonslayer" wyldwolf.
The more they work to defeat her, the more powerful she gets.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I note that any failure on Secretary Clinton's part to follow procedures, guidelines, recommendations, or what have you, would have been a failure to follow what amounts to an executive order by President Obama. And isn't that just exactly what Republicans are threatening to compromise our national security over this past month or so - an executive order?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... who'll do anything to discredit you.
She's got something going ...
Just my speculation
Hekate
(90,530 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Factual Journalism society - Michael in particular...this is how we are going to roll for the next year 1/2 - stay focused folk's - the shit is starting to be slammed against the wall - Whenever Tomasky writes, I sit up and listen...I do believe he is just getting started and so smart - now there is someone who is paying attention..and can write!
I have not taken a side within the Democratic party, except the side of facts...Hillary happens to be our strongest candidate to date -Liz Warren has repeatedly said she is not running, I honestly believe if she had come out strong with a run for the Presidency we would be having a different conversation.. - and Bernie, his message is strong and is on the side of hard working Americans, but, IMHO, cannot rise above the two party system....
Hillary is smart to continue to observe, strategize, and hold her cards close until she can pull the four aces from the deck...considering the Republicans are only a flush..literally...they will keep stumbling...for they have no ideas....war mongering - neocons that they are -
So what is a gal to do...continue to keep an ear to the ground, stay classy, and informed...
So I ask, what does a Republican Presidency look like? Who do they have? are you afraid of Corporate Christie ? - Jebbie speaks with forked tougue? - Walker Kochslime? - Nuff said....stand strong, we are the WARRIORS of yesteryear - we know how to mobilize - do your Dads and granddads and moms and grandmoms proud..they fought this fight for freedom..we must carry on against this oligarthy..
riqster
(13,986 posts)Waiting....
Waiting....
[IMG][/IMG]
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)Cha
(296,774 posts)A key question would seem to be this: When did the new regulations go into effect? Oddly, the Times article doesnt say. It doesnt pin the new regs down to a specific date or even year.
Now, I know enough about reporting to know how this works. If youve got an airtight case, then you lay it all out there. You include the date. Indeed you emphasize the date, you put it high up in your story. The fact that its not in there is a little fishy.
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)1. Who
2. What
3. Why
4. When
5. Where
6. How
You can skip number 4 if you are writing a smear article on Hillary.