NYT Michael Schmidt's follow up story to
the one he MADE UP a couple of weeks ago, even though he was
thoroughly busted, is continuing course, most likely based on what
he, Deputy Editor Matt Purdy and Executive Editor Dean Baquet have decided to do about Hillary Clinton. In case for any reason you think "maybe it's not all that nefarious", think again...
Just reading through the NYT it's easy to see how they operate when it comes to trying to criminalize the Clintons, this time it's Hillary's turn. First was July 23rd LITERALLY writing that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe when it was absolutely not the case at all. This was actually made up. They printed it, blasted it out to millions of people emails and phones. And it was as far from the truth as possible. After taking 2 days to walk it back, fighting it hour by hour, to the point of leaving up the word "criminal" in the headline and lead even after finding out it wasn't the case.
But any time you read Schmidt's work it's pretty plain to see. This for example. When NYT wants to say something obnoxious, they find a random dude. Either an anon former official or a former employee of somehwere.
Others say (what the????) more than politics is at stake. “I was stunned to see that
she didn’t use the State Department system for State Department
business, as we were always told we had to do,” said William Johnson, a
former Air Force officer who served at the department from 1999 to 2011.
Mr. Johnson said his concerns were only compounded by the discovery of
classified information in the emails.
“If I’d done that, I’d be out on
bond right now,” he said. He said he believed that someone should be
punished — if not Mrs. Clinton, then career employees whose job was to
safeguard secrets and preserve public records.
Hi. Yes, that's right, that's what Michael Jeff Gerth Schmidt wrote. And could anyone seriously care any less what some random dude thinks? Doesn't matter, it fits Schmidt's narrative. This random dude, Mr. Johnson's opinion is what Schmidt chooses to share. Here said random dude is going to chime in on the level of the deed in question.
“It’s not the end of the world; she didn’t give away the crown jewels,”
Mr. Johnson said. “But this is not how things are supposed to be done.”
Moving on. Here's a significant insinuation of suspect activity by purposeful omission:
The email controversy breaks into three clear phases: Mrs. Clinton’s
initial choices about how to set up her email; her decision to destroy
messages she judged to be personal; and the discovery of classified
information in an account where it is not allowed by law.
But in the entire subsection of "DELETED EMAILS" (dun dun dun), Mr. Schmidt at no time states anything related to the instructions are the sender chooses.
It's in the State Dept manual, it applies to other departments, and even other parts of government, Jeb Bush for example chose his emails to archive the exact same way when he used HIS private server to host his private email (Jeb@Jeb.org) for all his official business as Governor of Florida. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention what random Mr. Johnson thinks about the crown jewels but doesn't mention the State Dept manual for archiving emails? That's odd.
This is also interesting. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention a former ambassador who was relieved of his duty and cites his use of personal emails as one of the factors.
Scott Gration, ambassador to Kenya, resigned after a 2012 inspector
general’s report accused him of flouting government rules, including the
requirement that he use State Department email. “He has willfully
disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for
official government business,” the report said.
Let me clue you in on something, Scott Gration's IG report was lengthy, it included
reports of his subordinates hiding in the bathroom when he came around because of how hostile he was, his telling subordinates he was going to shoot them in the head. Not
checking his classified information. Etc.
But Schmidt is pretending that the employee using personal email rose to the level of an ambassador
fired.
And by the way, if you check out or have followed the
Benghazi Democrats on Twitter you know EXACTLY how Mr. Cummings feels about what is going on with the Benghazi Committee as it relates to the emails drama you'll find this paragraph by Schmidt strangely worded:
The committee’s top Democrat, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of
Maryland, said his concern has always been that the Benghazi inquiry —
which he said comes on top of “seven or eight” investigations already
conducted — would become a tool for Republicans who want to bash Mrs.
Clinton. He said he believed that to a considerable degree, that is what
has happened. “We have basically an unlimited budget to go after
Hillary Clinton,” he said.
But Mr Cummings concerns are beyond the passive "will become a tool", he is claming out loud and in print that the head of the committee is using the committee as as the tool. Big difference. But Mr. Schmidt has worked closely with Gowdy and Issa since March, so he has every reason to keep that part from getting into the news, people might actually see more of what is going on.
Surely there is a reason Mr. Schmidt has never touched on Mr. Cummings part in the Benghazi Committee story. It is a story in and of itself, and I have yet to see if fully told in the NYT.
And you can tell by many of the things I've mentioned above, Mr. Schmidt
is purposefully omitting information that might actually educate their readers, but by now you know, that's not what this is about. A matter of length perhaps. Funny, he sure didn't miss some "Mr. Johnson" saying that Hillary Clinton's actions would put someone else in prison.
