Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Pierce: Is The Washington Post Going to Come Clean on This Clinton Email Correction?
Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43507/benghazi-benghazi-benghazi/Is The Washington Post Going to Come Clean on This Clinton Email Correction?
When 147 could be 12, maybe you don't just stick that detail at the bottom.
Back in December, the staff here at the shebeen pointed out that The New York Times had a serious source-pollution problem when it came to the ongoing nothingburger flap about Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails, which is itself the ugly stepchild of the nothingburger known as Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! This involved someone who peddled bad information to the Times on the San Bernardino shooters, which followed hard upon the episode in which someone peddled bad information to the Times about how the FBI "has launched a criminal inquiry" into HRC's alleged mishandling of classified material. (That is true now, but it wasn't last July, when the story ran.) It was the opinion hereabouts that whoever these sources were, their intentions were far from honorable, and that it was the responsibility of the reporters to out them in order that the public might better judge the motives of the people investigating a former Secretary of State and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president.
(Ari Melber of MSNBC has a source that says it might be as few as 12. Obviously, this is the Rosenbergs all over again.)
Look, folks. That "lawmaker briefed by FBI director James Comey" is obviously a ratfcker with an agenda that has nothing to do with anything except political sabotage. That, by the way, is a helluva story.
When 147 could be 12, maybe you don't just stick that detail at the bottom.
Back in December, the staff here at the shebeen pointed out that The New York Times had a serious source-pollution problem when it came to the ongoing nothingburger flap about Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails, which is itself the ugly stepchild of the nothingburger known as Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! This involved someone who peddled bad information to the Times on the San Bernardino shooters, which followed hard upon the episode in which someone peddled bad information to the Times about how the FBI "has launched a criminal inquiry" into HRC's alleged mishandling of classified material. (That is true now, but it wasn't last July, when the story ran.) It was the opinion hereabouts that whoever these sources were, their intentions were far from honorable, and that it was the responsibility of the reporters to out them in order that the public might better judge the motives of the people investigating a former Secretary of State and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.
(Ari Melber of MSNBC has a source that says it might be as few as 12. Obviously, this is the Rosenbergs all over again.)
Look, folks. That "lawmaker briefed by FBI director James Comey" is obviously a ratfcker with an agenda that has nothing to do with anything except political sabotage. That, by the way, is a helluva story.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
