When we tell the Times to jump they always ask 'how high'?
Posted on 03/23/2015 10:42:24 AM PDT by maggief
EXCERPT
The roughly 300 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account that were turned over last month to a House committee investigating the attack showed the secretary and her aides closely monitoring the fallout from the tragedy, which threatened to damage her image and reflect poorly on the State Department.
They provided no evidence that Mrs. Clinton, as the most incendiary Republican attacks have suggested, issued a “stand down” order to halt American forces responding to the violence in Benghazi, or took part in a broad cover-up of the administration’s response, according to senior American officials.
But they did show that Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at times corresponded with her about State Department matters from their personal email accounts, raising questions about her recent assertions that she made it her practice to email aides at their government addresses so the messages would be preserved, in compliance with federal record-keeping regulations.
The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The woman (sic) is a self-serving pathological LIAR who always has and always WILL put her self-interests above America.
*SPIT*
Good grief. Benghazi happened on 9/11/2012. Sometime in March, 2015, Shrillery hands over "roughly 300 emails" from her private email server that have been fully under her control for 2 1/2 years ... these emails have been filtered, altered and cleansed to protect the guilty.
They provided no evidence...
Of course not.
The evidence was “deleted”
When we tell the Times to jump they always ask 'how high'?
GET BUSY, TREY.
I am beginning to doubt him.
So 300 emails that Hilary hand picked to hand over, that no one in the media is good enough for NYT to make a conclusion.
It was 0bama that ordered the stand down.
A good example of the media carrying water for the left. She was too tired to respond in person after a “gruelling workweek”? After the biggest, most important event of her tenure? And no one in the msm challeges that?
Well, Duh......that would be in the 30,000 'personal' emails she deleted.
300 emails? I think I process about that many emails every workday.
Gosh! We haven’t seen the actual emails but we can give our opinion of them anyway. Nice going, NYT! We would expect nothing less.
“Strikingly, given that she has set off an uproar over her emails, Mrs. Clinton is not a verbose correspondent. At times, she sends her highly regarded foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, an email containing a news article, with a simple instruction: Please print.”
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20150111-story.html
Nuclear talks in Geneva will be test of Iran’s flexibility
1/10/15
The U.S. team will include not only chief negotiator Wendy Sherman, but former deputy secretary of state William J. Burns and former top White House national security aide Jacob J. Sullivan.
OK, so the emails no one saw that haven’t been released show Hillary is in the clear. WHODDATHUNKIT?
Prime time network TV has some show called “Madame Secretary “ with Tea Leoni looking like a cleaned up and younger version of HRC. The current story line is something about Iran. Control the airwaves and you control the country.
Anyone can edit 300 emails in a matter of hours.
First of all, I don't remember people suggesting that Hillary Clinton issued a "stand down" order to halt American forces' response - after all, Hillary does not command American forces, rather it is Obama who does so.
But the part about Hillary not having taken part in a broad cover-up of the administration's response is laughably false 'spin' - especially since the NYT reporter hasn't even seen any of the emails.
The very fact that the emails have only now been made available, and grudgingly at best, and that we don't even know for certain which emails may have conveniently been destroyed or withheld, is prima facie evidence that Hillary has been and continues to be taking part in the cover-up. The public statements by Hillary about the "film-maker" being prosecuted by the federal government are part and parcel of the cover-up. Ad infinitum...
So the main purpose of this article seems to be a weak effort by the NYT to reassure its readers (who don't know what to think about any issue until the Times tells them what to think about it) that everything's gonna be OK...
“The emails have not been made public, and The New York Times was not permitted to review them. But four senior government officials offered descriptions of some of the key messages, on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.”
I saw that, too. So we have 4 fellas who are not only more partisan than they are respectful of their security clearance, but they are also too craven to put their name(s) down. I shudder that we have such men in DC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.