[bonus NYT narrative words include: Monica, Polarizing figure, Richard Nixon]
Creepy, weird and obnoxious pretty much describes this NYT narrative and story... they're saying because historians didn't randomly get all her personal emails written that she is somehow taking something away from them.
Keep in mind, here is the process by which SOS Clinton was to archive her emails, there are instructions that she was to use. In a nut shell they are: Hand over work related materials only and not personal ones.
But by the way Times writes the story, they omit that part and act as
if she was supposed to turn them over, and now the historians don't have
them.
When Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed that she had destroyed more than 30,000 emails about personal matters during her tenure as secretary of state, it was painful for historians and biographers. Some imagined themselves or their successors in 20 or 50 years prowling the archives with little success for the most intimate, revealing raw material.
Now, if these are Hillary Clinton's personal emails, how is that a loss to historians if they were hers never to be divulged. Because she kept them in the same place as her work emails? The way the archival process goes is, you archive work related matters and not personal. That is right out of the manual. So it's not a loss to historians because they would never have gotten her personal emails anyway. That's the weird part.
Creepy. Are they lamenting that they won't get hands on her personal emails? They wouldn't have gotten them anyway. ?? I know i just said that, under "weird", but this is both weird AND creepy. Oh speaking of creepy:
The lost Clinton emails, (??? They're HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) said Doris Goodwin might have helped fill in a vivid future portrait. (THEY'RE HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) “A government official is not just an official,” said Ms. Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and other figures. “They have marriages and children and rich private lives that are all mixed up with their public lives. As a biographer, that’s what you want.”
I find it almost hard to write about why this is so weird because it makes no sense. "I lament that i don't have a million dollars", okayyy, and? It's not mine, ?? so?
GET READY FOR THIS:
Her decision to delete the personal emails (why would she hand them over? they are her personal emails) may reflect her experience as a polarizing figure who lived through the searing experience of her husband’s very public sexual affair with a White House intern.
When you personally delete your personal emails, is it because you are a "polarizing figure"? And what. the. f. does Monica Lewisky have to do with ANYTHING?? wtf?
Now, as a likely presidential candidate, she opted to delete the private emails out of concern that they could leak and be used to embarrass her or undermine her candidacy.
THEY ARE HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS.
CREEPY ALERT: “If she becomes president, we would eventually want to have all the intimate details of her life before the presidency,” said Robert Dallek, a prominent presidential historian. “It’s all part of the historical record.”
We want to have all the intimate details of her life? It's all a part of the historical record? Dear reader, are you taking this in? Does this article now make any sense at all. The reason it is this crazy is because NYT makes up crazy s--t when they write about the Clintons (more so about Hillary than Bill actually).
THIS IS AN ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER who's byline is "all the news that's fit to print". Umm....
Wait, NYT isn't done until they call compare her to Nixon for not giving the government and the public her personal emails...
Wait, NYT isn't done until they call compare her to Nixon for not giving the government and the public her personal emails...
But Richard M. Nixon’s tangle with taping, in which incriminating recordings during the Watergate scandal helped end his presidency, has left his successors disinclined to record. “I doubt that we’ll find recordings from the recent presidents,” Mr. Dallek said. “That’s a shame.”Here instructions were NOT to turn over her personal emails, her instructions by the State department were to turn over ONLY her work related materials.What the hell does that have to do with Nixon. Oh, NYT Clinton Narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment