Narrative Pushing March '15 - Pretending exoneration proof proves guilt...

This one is bizarre, and awful at the same time. New information surfaces and proves that the drama story (HRC using her own email) is a non-issue ("regulations permitted") and now her method turns out has actually meant her emails were saved because .gov emails were NOT archived... but instead of using this new found information to add closure, they use it to pretend she was mistaken and now emails are lost. But in reality the article proves the opposite, because of her server, emails are saved. Sounds weird but look, it's true...

Emails Mrs. Clinton said were saved may be missing

Michael Schmidt, 3/12/15. This story is one of the few stories about her in the last 20 days that has actual relevant information in it. They are:

1. There was not at any time in State Department (and other departments) history, archiving of emails. Not until a few months ago. Which means, if Hillary Clinton had used a government email address, her emails would have not been saved because there was no auto archiving.

State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officials’ emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.

So wait,  NO ONE'S EMAILS HAVE BEEN SAVED...except for a very few people, one of those people being Hillary Clinton.

So now the entire email story is moot because no one's emails were saved. Oh, except for the ones on Mrs. Clinton's server, which means she saved more emails than anyone else.

But the title says they may be lost... Makes no damn sense huh. Oh, NYT... Clinton story.. that's how it goes, makes no sense.

Read it. See if it makes any sense what so ever. I could go into the backwards logic of it, but honestly, when you read it, if it makes your brain hurt, that's backwards logic.

And the whole original drama was, ZOMG, SHE BROKE RULZ, SHE HAD OWN EMAIL SNEAKY...

Regulations issued by the National Archives in October 2009 said that agencies where employees were free to use private email systems “must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” (She did preserve them, and did turn them over. (But she did so late. 2 years late. Jeb Bush's were 7 years late, but Hillary sneaky. got it).

So now there is no rulz breaking, and using her own server ended up saving all her emails.

See, NYT wrote a flawed story and it got them a huge amount of attention. Now they have to keep the story going. So even though news came out that should make it clear it was better that she used her own server, they spin it into... i don't even know what to call it because it's so weird. An opposite story?

Now what's the email drama? None. But it's not over because it's all every media outlet can talk about it because the NYT is keeping the flames going, the writers even bragging on twitter that they're getting Drudge traffic. lol. And even worse, it is now being used in politics, the GOP has picked it up, they want to issue subpeonas, and are calling for third party investigators.... does this sound familiar to you? Well guess what. NYT wrote a similarly flawed Whitewater story. There you go.