“Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned. On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.
But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information. The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”
The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server…”
If transmitting classified information via a taxpayer-funded, unsecured, private email server while serving as Secretary of State was “extremely careless“, this, quite literally, is criminal; except in the minds of James Comey…
…and the MSM, whose only real reaction will be to double down on the deceitfulness of their existing narrative:
In a related item, writing at NRO, the great Victor Davis Hanson details…
“Everyone rightly catalogues Donald Trump’s fibs, distortions, and exaggerations: his assertions about his net worth, his charitable contributions, his initial supposed opposition to the Iraq War, or his “flexible” positions on illegal immigration. After all, he is flamboyant, right-wing in his present incarnation, and supposedly bends the truth either out of crass narcissism or for petty profiteering. So the watchdog media and popular culture have no problem with ridiculing Trump as a fabricator.
But not so with Hillary Clinton, whose untruths far overshadow Trump’s in both import and frequency, but are so often contextualized, excused, and forgotten because of who she is and the purpose her outright lying supposedly serves.
Lying in America has become not lying when “good” liars advance alternative narratives for noble purposes — part of our long slide into situational ethics and moral relativism.
Every new bad idea in America today can ultimately be traced to the university. And it seems to take only about 30 years for academia’s nihilism to filter through the elite institutions and make its way into popular culture. So it is with our present idea of truth as a mere construct.
In the 1980s and 1990s professors in the liberal arts became enamored of the French-speaking postmodern nihilists — among them notably Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan. They refashioned an old philosophical strain of relativism found as far back as the Greek sophists and Plato’s discussion of the noble lie. They were influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s attacks on absolute morality, and their youth was lived during the age of Joseph Goebbels and Pravda. The utter collapse of France in six weeks in May and June 1940 and the later shame that most of the nation either was passive or actively collaborated with the Nazi occupiers rather than proving brave resistance fighters made the idea of empiricism and truth an especially hard pill to swallow for the postwar French postmodernists…”
As Alan Clark observed in his masterwork Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45, in late June, 1940, the French were “a people who sacrificed their country and institutions for their own personal safety. The pleasures of wine, adultery, and civilised conversation could, is seemed, be preserved simply by refusing to fight“.
Contemporary Progressives are not only no better, they are in fact significantly more debauched and debased. France was a former world empire well on its way to international irrelevancy; the American Left, in the name of an utterly unrealistic and hypocritical agenda, is doing its best to hamstring what is still, and perhaps always will be, the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known. And for that they deserve history’s undying contempt.
Since we’re on the subject of patent Progressive prevarication, the WSJ‘s Kimberly Strassel suggests this election Republicans…
““You bet I voted for that bill. I’m proud I did it!” yelled Russ Feingold at a Wisconsin campaign stop in 2010.That pride—in ObamaCare—lost the three-term Democratic senator his job. Now his party’s ownership of the health-care law may once again decide the Senate.
ObamaCare is roaring back as a political liability to Democrats in a way not seen since that 2010 wave election.Right in time for this fall’s presidential contest, insurers are bailing out of the government system, leaving millions of voters with dwindling options and skyrocketing premiums. ObamaCare was always destined to crack up, but there is something notable that it comes precisely as so much control of Washington is up for grabs.
Especially since the health law is playing an outsize role in the states that will matter most for which party controls the Senate. At least three crucial elections feature Democrats who provided the final Senate votes to make ObamaCare the law of the land.Several other high-profile races are playing out in states where the health law has wreaked particular damage…”
Too bad John Roberts isn’t on the ballot!
Which brings us to today’s installment of the Environmental Moment, brought to us by Bret Stephens’ latest from the pages of the WSJ, as he reveals…
Eric Schneiderman: like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a study in Liberal idiocy!
“New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigation of Exxon Mobil for climate sins has collapsed due to its own willful dishonesty. The posse of state AGs he pretended to assemble never really materialized. Now his few allies are melting away: Massachusetts has suspended its investigation. California apparently never opened one.
The U.S. Virgin Islands has withdrawn its sweeping, widely criticized subpoena of research groups and think tanks. In an email exposed by a private lawsuit, one staffer of the Iowa AG’s office tells another that Mr. Schneiderman himself was “the wild card.”
His initial claim, flounced to the world by outside campaigners under the hashtag “exxonknew,” fell apart under scrutiny. This was the idea that, through its own research in the 1970s, Exxon knew one thing about climate science but told the public something else.
In an Aug. 19 interview with the New York Times, Mr. Schneiderman now admits this approach has come a cropper. He reveals that he’s no longer focusing on what Exxon knew/said but instead on how it goes about valuing its current oil reserves. In essence, Mr. Schneiderman here is hiding his retreat behind a recent passing fad in the blogosphere for discussing the likelihood that such reserves will become “stranded assets” under some imaginary future climate regime.
His crusade was always paradoxical. The oil industry reliably ranks last in Gallup’s annual survey of public credibility. The $16 million that Exxon spent between 1998 and 2005 to support organizations that criticized speculative climate models is a minuscule fraction of the propaganda budgets of the U.S. Energy Department, NASA, NOAA, EPA, not to mention the United Nations’ climate panel, etc. etc.
The episode ends happily, though, if Mr. Schneiderman’s hoped-for political career now goes into eclipse. But we haven’t finished unless we also mention the press’s role…”
Which, as with the sale of every other unsupportable Progressive policy, is integral to its success.
Turning now to The Lighter Side…
Finally, we’ll call it a week with the latest from the incomparable Stilton Jarlsberg as Hope ‘n Change…
…ties into an earlier, yet still timely cartoon from Stilt’s beloved father:
Stilton is truly both a bird of rare plumage…and an apple which fell very close to the tree!
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.