This is the meme for the week.
L
You have to admire the New York Times’ talent for disinformation. They focus on a few emails, out of 1,300, where agencies disagree. “Agencies Battle over what is Top Secret” - except that for many of the emails - the agencies are not battling at all because they all agree it is Top Secret. NYT spin is that since Hillary is only guilty of 1,290 crimes instead of 1,300, everything is just a big misunderstanding. They then claim that because the “armed drone” program was the subject of news reports “and entire books”, the program is “anything but secret”! What a stinking pile of C*AP. So yes we all know there are drones. But if Hillary gets an email that says “tomorrow we are going to kill Muhammed Abu blah blah in Kandahar at his headquarters on Mosque street”, then this isn’t Top Secret because it relates generally to a drone program about which there have been news reports? HOW STUPID does the NYT think its readers are? ANSWER - VERY VERY STUPID. Then they compare Rice and Powell’s receipt from aides of emails on their personal accounts - “most of the emails were written by her aides” they say, which “is also true of the emails forwarded to Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice. But the truth is ALL of the emails with classified info sent to Powell and Rice’s personal emails were sent by aides. This is NOT TRUE of HRC’s email, ALL her correspondence, most of which was not sent by aides, and including emails to and from the President, were on her personal account. They then quote a Democratic shill who says “the same information .. may receive two opposite classification determinations.” The truth, which you will never see in the NYT, is that the same information, almost always receives THE SAME classification determination, though occasionally there are disagreements. They then cite a few emails where the classification is disputed - but this is BULL, there are hundreds of emails where there is absolutely no dispute about whether it contained classified information. Next time I get a traffic ticket on Wednesday I will defend myself by saying “But I didn’t go over the speed limit last Tuesday, your honor”. Or maybe the Times will write an article about me saying I drove under the speed limit for a whole day so therefore I can drive as fast as I want now.