There’s no scandal in Hillary Clinton’s emails

From:, By: David Brock, On: March 5th, 2015, See the article HERE.

Garnet92 preface: Friends and neighbors, I present this article to enlighten us all of how the left is spinning this latest Clinton scandal (Emailgate). This article was published on CNN’s website and was written by David Brock. Mr. Brock is the founder and chairman of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge (formed to help elect liberal democrats) and Correct the Record. And in case you aren’t familiar with Correct the Record, I got this from the “About” section of their website: “Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend potential Democratic presidential candidates from right-wing, baseless attacks.” And if that’s not enough, Mr. Brock also founded “Media Matters for America.” 

Mr. Brock graduated from University of California, Berkeley (where else?) and is gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

So, now that I’ve provided some background, here’s the article with my editorial comments interspersed (colored and italicized).


(CNN)How do Republicans try to breathe new life into an old scandal? We’ve seen it time and time again. Here’s how it works:

Step One: Republicans, with nothing in their arsenal to use against Hillary Clinton, selectively leak to reporters a “scandalous” tidbit — often one that has been previously reported. Previously reported? That’s news to a lot of people. He’s using the tired old liberal meme, “it’s old news.”

Step Two: The new media bites.

Step Three: The media hyperventilates and suffocates the airwaves with repetition of the same story.

Step Four: Upon further examination, the story falls apart. I must be dense, or just missed it, but exactly WHEN did the story fall apart?

This is exactly how the latest media hype, this time over Hillary Clinton’s use of emails at the State Department, has played out. And it presents yet another chapter in the Benghazi hoax. No, it must be David who is dense or missed it – Gowdy’s committee just subpoenaed more documents Wednesday, the 4th and no one has yet vetted the emails that reside on her personal server (not accessible to anyone except the Clintons) and as far as Benghazi being a hoax, I’ll believe that when Rep. Trey Gowdy says that it was a hoax.

The New York Times story about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account at the State Department is a perfect example of “gotcha” journalism, where reporters will take any bait the Republicans give them without proper vetting. The New York Times has a history of this. (Whitewater, anyone?).

The Times story suggests Secretary Clinton broke federal rules in relation to her email. But the Times’ main source for this allegation says Clinton violated no laws. I invite (no, I urge) anyone who is interested to take the link and read the New York Times story. It is not exactly supportive of Hillary’s actions and includes a number of statements that deride her decision to use a home-based personal account to transact government business. There was no person quoted as saying “she violated no laws.”

Yes, Clinton used a private email account to communicate while she was secretary of state. But so did secretaries of state before her. According to the State Department spokesman Marie Harf, John Kerry is the first secretary of state ever to rely primarily on official State Department email. That statement is typical of the democrat apologists, let’s clarify: Yes, Colin Powell used a personal email account to handle personal tasks and even occasionally communicated with other ambassadors and foreign leaders, but ONLY UNCLASSIFIED communications. He DID use an internal State Department for CLASSSIFIED communications and to communicate with his staff. And his term was BEFORE the 2009 regulations and updated policies of 2013 and 2014 were in effect. And as for Condoleezza Rice, she rarely used email to conduct state business and when she did, she used the State Department email system, she DID NOT use any personal account for government business.

In October 2014, 18 months after Clinton left, the State Department was engaged in the process of updating its records preservation policies. The State Department asked every secretary of state dating back to Madeleine Albright to provide records, including emails, from their time in office. Clinton responded to the State Department’s request for emails, providing the department with over 55,000 pages of emails. She did so months ago. Clinton has been fully transparent and has asked the State Department for these emails to be made public. Oh please. If Hillary was so transparent, why’d she need an offsite personal and private email system and server? Hillary’s only transparency has been her attempt to isolate herself from incriminating evidence. The emails that she is urging the State Department to make public are emails that SHE culled and sent to the State Department – she chose which ones to send – what did she chose NOT to send? And don’t forget that the 55,000 number that the left keeps touting are PAGES, not emails. From her own figures, her emails averaged 3 pages per email, so she sent the SD something less than 19,000 emails (on average).

Republican investigators seeking to hype the current Benghazi investigation leaked the issue to keep a dying investigation alive.

And once again, reporters bit. In the days since The New York Times posted its story, there have been dozens and dozens of stories written on the topic. Why?

Because the Clintons are held to a double standard when it comes to media scrutiny. Their perfectly usual, above board behavior is spun as secretive and unaccountable — while Republicans are left relatively unscathed. That says it all; the Clinton’s “perfectly usual, above board behavior” that’s a laugh all by itself. The only major political figure less truthful than the Clintons is Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney used his private email account to discuss political business, and when he left the governor’s office, his administration destroyed records rather than turn them over to state archives.

Scott Walker’s County Executive’s office used a secret email system, which investigators determined was being used to engage in campaign work on county time and to avoid public records disclosure laws.

Mike Huckabee’s office had files, including emails, cleaned and physically destroyed, including “travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails.”

Why hasn’t their behavior been scrutinized over and over again? Because their last name isn’t Clinton. And maybe, just maybe, it’s because they weren’t under the same governmental regulations as Hillary Clinton and THEY WEREN’T THE SECRETARY OF STATE. To conflate those candidates with a cabinet-level federal official is ludicrous.

In the end, all we are left with is the benign fact that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account at the State Department. This isn’t even a revelation — it has been known for years. Looks like the Republicans wasted their breath, once again, for nothing.


Unfortunately, many of our low-information brothers and sisters will read Brock’s pack of lies and think that they’re getting the news, when what they’re getting is lie-filled spin.







Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to There’s no scandal in Hillary Clinton’s emails

  1. Bullright says:

    If you follow Brock’s (faulty) reasoning, you’d think up until now we had no record or archives for anything. If you can’t defend her then point to every other person since Herbert Hoover as…deceitful. Then he and his Clintonites are talking about Jeb and Christie both of which are state not federal matters.

    Oh, this is going to take some defending, challenging even Brock — especially when even libs are appalled by what she did like socialist Lawrence O’Donnell. Anytime you need old Ed Rendell come out to defend you, it’s never a good thing..

  2. Garnet92 says:

    It surprised me to see that Brock’s statements have been mocked widely across The Internet. We could expect that of conservative sites, but a large number of leftist sites thought Brock’s statements to be so ludicrous that they deserved mockery as well. He clearly went too far when he described Hillary’s actions as “transparent.” And the description of the Clinton’s behavior as “perfectly usual, above board behavior” requires a “willful suspension of disbelief” to accept. He’d have done more good for Hillary if he’d kept his mouth shut.