If you saw the news yesterday, (and I fully sympathize with you if you did not since such an exercise is not only terrifying but mentally and emotionally exhausting) you would have seen that the ubiquitous news media - both the biased liberal media and "Fair and Balanced" Fox News - were trumpeting the BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE - as were the equally ubiquitous pundit panelists - was all over the latest Wikileaks dump that conclusively shows Clinton offering a quid-pro-quo (selling State Department influence, engaging in treasonous behavior, undermining our national security, palling around with ISIS - depending on the cable channel and web sites you might have visited) to the FBI to post more FBI agents in Benghazi in return for not classifying a Clinton e-mail.  This, in a nutshell, is what all the breathless panic is all bout. 

Setting aside the fact (yes, FACT) that the e-mails had nothing to do with Hillary, they were from John Podesta's e-mail account, just one day later the entire treasonous episode has simply evaporated into thin air like the soap bubbles from a four year old's playground adventures.  

Here's the real deal about this treasonous incident from the New York Times: 

Ex-F.B.I. Official Acknowledges Role in New Clinton Email Controversy

WASHINGTON — A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him — until he realized the deal involved Mrs. Clinton and the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya.
“When I found that out, all bets were off; it wasn’t even negotiable,” the former F.B.I. official, Brian McCauley, said in a telephone interview.
Republicans have seized on the episode to accuse the State Department of trying to protect Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. McCauley’s account could undercut those attempts because he said he, not the State Department, had suggested the “quid pro quo.”
Mr. McCauley recounted in the interview that Patrick F. Kennedy, a senior State Department official, called him in spring 2015 looking for help in getting the F.B.I. to agree not to classify the disputed email. Mr. McCauley said he had agreed to try to help him if Mr. Kennedy would help him get the State Department to restore two spots that the F.B.I. had lost recently in the Baghdad embassy.
“I’m the one that threw that out there,” Mr. McCauley said of the offer. He said that he was concerned the two vacant posts posed a security risk at the embassy, and that the offer was typical of how federal agencies “help each other and work with each other.”
In that initial conversation, Mr. McCauley said, “it was a quid pro quo; I don’t deny it.”
Mr. McCauley said he had quickly reversed himself, however, after calling another F.B.I. official and learning that the email in question involved the Benghazi attack — a political cudgel for Republicans against Mrs. Clinton.
At that point, Mr. McCauley said, he abandoned any thought of exchanging favors and called Mr. Kennedy immediately to tell him that he could not help. “It was off the table; the quid pro quo was not even close to being considered,” Mr. McCauley said.
His account was largely consistent with that of Mr. Kennedy, who made his first public comment on the controversy in a written statement put out on Tuesday by the State Department, a day after the email episode emerged in new documents released by the F.B.I.
The F.B.I. documents did not identify Mr. McCauley; The Washington Post first identified him and interviewed him about his account on Tuesday.
Mr. Kennedy, who also did not identify Mr. McCauley in his statement, said he called the F.B.I. official for help last year because he “wanted to better understand” why the bureau wanted to classify a portion of the Benghazi email before its release to the public.
Like Mr. McCauley, he said the issue of the F.B.I.’s positions in Baghdad had come up in the conversation, but he said that there had never been an implicit or explicit offer to exchange favors.
“At no point in our conversation was I under the impression we were bargaining,” he said, adding that in nearly four decades in the Foreign Service, he served Democratic and Republican administrations. “My motivations were never political,” Mr. Kennedy said.
He said he did not believe the information should be classified as “secret,” but should instead be redacted, or blacked out, on the grounds that it contained information related to a continuing investigation.
“We take very seriously our responsibility to decide whether our documents are classified or not classified,” Mr. Kennedy said. “We can’t simply cede that responsibility to another agency.”
Mr. McCauley said he remembered Mr. Kennedy’s telling him in their initial phone conversation that he wanted to redact part of the email on different grounds so it could be “buried in the basement” of the State Department.
But State Department officials denied any intention to bury the email. In the end, the State Department accepted the bureau’s argument and released the email with a sentence redacted as secret because it related to the F.B.I.’s Clinton email investigation.
Even so, Republicans continued to focus on Mr. Kennedy’s handling of the emails. Donald J. Trump, for a second day, said on Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton’s email server was a scandal “worse than Watergate.” Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Kennedy and his role in the purported quid pro quo.
“Under Secretary Kennedy’s attempt to barter away American national security interests for plainly political purposes is appalling and may rise to the level of a federal crime,” Mr. Goodlatte wrote in the letter.
President Obama, appearing with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy at the White House, dismissed the controversy over the F.B.I. documents when asked if it disturbed him.
“Based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren’t based on actual events and based on what actually happened,” he said, “and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the F.B.I. that happen a lot and happen between agencies.”
Mr. McCauley saw the episode in much the same way.
Mr. Trump and other Republicans, he said, “are grasping at straws.”
“There was no political motivation in this at all,” he added.
Mr. McCauley retired from the F.B.I. last summer after 35 years because of a medical issue. He said his retirement was unrelated to the email episode.
F.B.I. officials said that while they had referred the quid pro quo accusation to their inspections branch for an ethics review as a matter of policy, the issue had become moot because Mr. McCauley left the bureau. State Department officials said they had not conducted an internal review because they had seen no basis for one.

NOTE: This is the entire piece from today's New York Times.  I have not included my usual snarky cartoons because I think that this is an important event.  The pretty swift fact checking and the results are very important for a couple of reasons.  The first is that if you tuned into any news source yesterday, there was simply no avoiding this latest "Hillary Clinton" scandal.  The news spread like wildfire as these stories often do.   (The other major news story was Donald Trump's continuing exhortation about how the elections are rigged - before they happen - and how the Trumpettes must "ensure" that people arriving to vote at their local polling places don't vote five or six times.)  But the equally swift debunking of this anti-Hillary narrative is something new for our press.  Sure, it's from the New York Times so immediately conservatives can and will dismiss this fact-based article as simply a concoction created out of thin air by the liberal press.  That this quick fact-checking is occurring after more than a year of the Trump Campaign is not exactly comforting to me nor does it place even the NYT in a favorable light but, I suppose, better late then never.
An equally, if not more important reason for the importance of this series of events, is the source.   This is one of - what is it? 3 now? - major WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Russian e-mail dumps that are clearly designed to influence our Presidential election.  They were obtained by hacking John Podesta's e-mail account, which is an illegal activity.  This is not some one-off, "Oh that crazy Vlad Putin!"  kind of cutesy international diplomatic gamesmanship, but a very serious intrusion by a foreign government into our internal political affairs. And Trump?  He has actually encouraged this kind of hacking.    Apparently he's cool with a foreign government attempting to influence our Presidential election.  As long, I suppose, that the influence helps him.  
At this very moment I am watching the news where a female news reporter is excoriating Kelly Anne Conway - Trump's current campaign manager - over Trump's alleged sexual predations and she is not letting Ms. Conway deflect from the Access Hollywood tape, the ten women who claim that Trump molested them and the six more women who have corroborated their claims.  It's a pretty fierce exchange.  This, folks, is a new day in news reporting.  
Let's hope that this pushback sticks around for a while.  It's what we desperately need in this age of false narratives, false equivalencies and ultimately just plain garden variety falsehoods that have been ruling the airwaves for decades
Have A Good Day And Don't Miss Tonight's Last Presidential Debate.  

PS: I've met Patrick Kennedy, the wrongly accused State Department official who - until this morning - was wrongly accused of initiating the "deal" between the State Department and the FBI.  I found him to be an extremely gracious, intelligent and funny guy!     But, hey, I'm just some dumb Librul sheeple!
 BREAKING NEWS UPDATE:  It is now early afternoon in the Capital of the Free World (or as I like to call it " the most beautiful, batshit liberal, left wing, Commie, faggoty city in America") and The Donald is out in Las Vegas still thumping the latest Wikileaks Killary FBI State Department criminal deal.  Oh, and, yes, "the election is rigged."  

No comment. From me.    


Popular posts from this blog