FBI: Oh, Hey, Some of Hillary's Insecure E-Mails Had Classified Information
So . . . how does Hillary Clinton get out of this one? The FBI has taken possession of thumb drives containing Hillary Clinton's emails, some of which have been deemed to contain highly sensitive classified information, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter. The official was not authorized to be quoted publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, turned over the emails after the FBI determined that he could not remain in possession of the classified information, the official said. The State Department previously had said it was comfortable with Kendall keeping the emails at his Washington law office. The news came as Sen. Charles Grassley said two of the emails, which traversed Clinton's insecure home email server, were deemed "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information," which is among the government's highest classifications. Hillary's e-mails included information classified up to "TOP SECRET/SI/TK/NOFORN". For those who don't speak bureaucratese, that's "Special Intelligence," meaning communications intercepts, "Talent Keyhole," meaning space-based imagery and signals intelligence, and NOFORN, which means "no foreign nationals" -- meaning it cannot be shared with foreign citizens. Where does Hillary go from here? "My opponents are playing politics"? Sure, but will she really be able to persuade a majority of the public that the FBI is a malicious tool of the vast right-wing conspiracy? Maybe they'll dust off the "this is an out-of-control vendetta driven by runaway prosecutors on a fishing expedition" defense, except this appears pretty straightforward. Either the information was classified or it wasn't -- although Hillary appeared to leave some wiggle room suggesting that maybe something she e-mailed about was later classified: "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton told reporters in Winterset, Iowa. "The facts are pretty clear," Clinton said. "I did not send or receive anything that was classified at the time." FACT CHECK: Horsepuckey. Ira Stoll suggests she'll cite Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report suggesting that too much information gathered and distributed by government is unnecessarily classified. "It depends upon what the definition of 'is' is?" Maybe she'll go back to a classic:
Do Republicans Even Care What Conservatism Is Anymore? In mid-August 2011, Rick Perry was the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. He led every national poll from mid-August to late September. Of course, the following six months turned out to be one of the most tumultuous periods of any presidential primary in recent memory: Herman Cain led some polls -- he reached 27 percent in one survey -- followed by Newt Gingrich, and before the primaries were done, Rick Santorum was the frontrunner for several consecutive polls. At one point, Michele Bachmann was in second place nationally. In February, one poll had Ron Paul in second place with 21 percent of the vote. Of course, Mitt Romney never trailed that badly, and ended up winning the nomination. Perhaps Donald Trump will be remembered as another Cain or Gingrich. But one striking contrast is that Cain and Gingrich were indisputably conservative. Sure, Gingrich had some out-there ideas and Cain could be pretty open about his inexperience in foreign affairs, but their views, statements, and actions during their long public careers clearly put them on the right side of the political spectrum. This doesn't apply to Donald Trump. The criteria of the Trump fans strike the rest of us as bewildering, because there's no past or present deviation from conservative philosophy that seems serious enough to get them to say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . maybe I've got the wrong guy here." Trump is allegedly popular because he's the only one talking about illegal immigration -- he isn't -- but in the past days he said he supports what sounds like a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants, based on "merit." Ann Coulter contends Trump will continue to surge as long as he keeps talking about immigration, stating, "The voters keep saying, 'We don't want any more immigration." Does she still feel that way when Trump says, "I would get people out and I would have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so that they can be legal"? Glenn Reynolds attributes Trump's rise to anger over two particular issues . . . Trump's rise is, like that of his Democratic counterpart Bernie Sanders, a sign that a large number of voters don't feel represented by more mainstream politicians. On many issues, ranging from immigration reform, which many critics view as tantamount to open borders, to bailouts for bankers, the Republican and Democratic establishments agree, while a large number (quite possibly a majority) of Americans across the political spectrum feel otherwise . . . Except Trump's immigration position of sending the illegals home and then letting "the good ones" enter legally isn't all that different from an open border, and Trump is not a critic of the Troubled Asset Relief Program: You had to do something to sure up [sic] the banks, because the psychology of the banks and you would have had a run on every banks, the strongest and the weakest. So, you have to do something. And I hated the ultraconservative view on that. And ultraconservative is nothing should ever happen. If they go out of business, everybody said, that's fine. You did have to do something to sure up the banks. They probably should have done something for Lehman Brothers, because Lehman was a disaster that caused lots of other disasters. Lehman was a real disaster, but they did have to do something to sure up the banks. Trump also supported the bailout of the auto industry. On just about every major issue, Trump has previously loudly endorsed the progressive ideal: In 1999, he endorsed a 14.25 percent one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more. He's called for "universal healthcare" and described himself as "very liberal on health care." He supported the assault-weapons ban. He once said he was "very pro-choice." He just said he's willing to support funding for Planned Parenthood's non-abortion activities. He's a big fan of eminent domain, and said he agreed with the Kelo vs. New London decision "100 percent." Lots of conservative writers have been laying out Trump's past statements and positions for several weeks now, with little or no impact on his lead in the polls. Either lots of Republican voters don't encounter these arguments, or they read them and don't think Trump's past positions matter much. What's particularly baffling about Trump fans is that, right after dismissing their man's past liberal positions, they will then turn around and dismiss other candidates because they're allegedly not conservative enough. The skepticism of Jeb Bush is completely understandable, whether it's his allegedly "rigorous path to earned legal status," his stance on Common Core (and the suspicion he's not being honest about what the program does) or the nagging fear he won't be relentless enough if matched against his metaphorical sister-in-law Hillary Clinton. But between his dramatic expansion of school choice, nearly $20 million in state tax cuts, cutting 14,000 state jobs, abolishment of affirmative action in university admissions and state contracting by executive order, and eliminating all state funding of Planned Parenthood, Jeb Bush did more for the cause of conservatism in his eight years as governor than Donald Trump ever did. Marco Rubio will be similarly dismissed from consideration for his role in the Gang of Eight deal, although how different is that bill's path to citizenship from Trump's "expedited way to get them back in the country legally"? Rick Perry is flat-lining in some of the early primary states. Is this over his 2011 "have a heart" comment? Doesn't his response to the 2014 border crisis count for anything? Are we really to believe that Donald Trump is the most consistently conservative, most qualified, most electable, overall best choice in a field that includes Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal? That he deserves the support of Republicans more than Carly Fiorina? Even if you disagree with some of their particular stances, don't Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee deserve more credit for what they've actually done for the conservative cause? Doesn't Ben Carson or John Kasich bring more to the table? The 20-some percent of self-identified Republicans currently preferring Trump are insisting to the rest of us that records don't matter, attitude does. This strikes me as spectacularly wrong-headed. Do these voters know what conservatism is? Do they care? Schumer Is Lobbying Democratic Senators on the Iran Deal After All Hmm: Schumer, though, is lobbying his colleagues to vote against the agreement when the Senate takes up a "resolution of disapproval" next month, several undecided senators said during interviews. The disapproval resolution is expected to win the 60 votes needed to overcome any Democratic filibuster. The real question, however, is whether President Barack Obama can rally the 34 senators he needs to uphold a veto of the resolution. Right now, the Senate vote is too close to call, although Obama's support for a veto override appears more solid among House Democrats, with three more coming out on Tuesday in favor of the agreement. I still don't think the Iran deal gets voted down, but . . . perhaps the odds are shifting. ADDENDA: The Rolla (Missouri) Daily News reviews The Weed Agency, in light of the egregious incompetence of the Environmental Protection Agency, turning the Animas River mustard-yellow with 3 million gallons of toxic waste from a mine. Jenni Giesey kindly writes, "For a funny look, and yes, at times, infuriating look, at the federal government, at how politicians try to enter Washington DC with good intentions but how bureaucracy often stops them in their tracks, get a copy of The Weed Agency. I highly recommend it!" Finally . . . Ouch: "Jets Fans Should Be Happy Geno Smith Got Punched in the Face." Yes, statistically, Ryan Fitzpatrick is a better, less turnover-prone quarterback. But it's sheer madness to see a team's starting quarterback get punched in the face, jaw broken, over a $600 debt. | 
Comments
Post a Comment