"By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO JULY 24, 2015"

I think somebody's got an agenda there... It just smells. Something smells.

Nailed it my friend.

This aspect of the story is finally spreading. Which is GOOD.

It's in Raw Story now, too, and Wonkette, and I think I also saw it on Kos - and I'm not even really searching that hard:

Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. (For those who have thoughts of late-night meetings in parking garages or the Pentagon Papers, they were unclassified documents. Reporters obtain those kinds of records through the complex, investigative procedure of asking the press office for them.) And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.

So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”

In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/heres-how-the-new-york-times-bungled-the-hillary-clinton-emails-story/comments/

Something just doesn't feel right about this. I saw the reporter who wrote this story being interviewed on MSNBC on Thursday. SMUG little so-n-so. I couldn't believe how smug! As if to say "I'VE got all the dirt! Ain't I special!" He behaved as though he thinks he can already taste his Pulitzer. I wonder what his real agenda is - because I've seen him interviewed before, about some sort of attempted take-down of either the President or Democrats or some such - and he came off incredibly smug then, too. Almost like another Judith Miller - and she's always been pretty smug, too.

Actually, I really DON'T wonder what his real agenda is and who's feeding him this crap to regurgitate on the front pages of the New York Times. Michael S. Schmidt. I think I'm gonna start watching him. I suspect he's got ulterior motives. Yet another hatchet job on Hillary. Wonder why anybody'd do that?

Sweeeeeeet!

Literally, too!

So has mine. This is VERY valuable and illuminating information.

Makes the voter suppression efforts all the more sinister.

So WHERE are the Democrats then? To make sure these people have the proper ID so they can vote, and help them get it if they don't??????

VERY Cool!!!

Melt Them Down! I like it, Stinky!

I'm onboard. I'm fucking sick of this, too. HOW MANY MASSACRES is enough, America?

Why are guns so easy to get? WHY can't we stop that? Or even slow it down????

I liked what Charles Pierce said on MSNBC today (I believe it was on "All In" with Chris Hayes). He said he wanted to put it to the gunners and 2nd Amendment apologists: Please explain to me how a gun massacre every other week is the price we have to pay for "freedom"? How is a gun massacre EVERY OTHER WEEK a fair exchange for the mindless worship of the 2nd Amendment? I'd like you to make the case for a gun massacre every other week being the price we have to pay. Is it REALLY that worth it?

SUCH a good question. And they won't answer it. But they will do some very good dancing and bob 'n' weaving, I'm sure.

Probably dancing with their damn guns.

HOW MANY of these are okay per year, America? HOW MANY per MONTH? Or WEEK? You gonna push it to How Many Per DAY???? Will THAT be enough for you?

Me too, malaise. ENOUGH.

This has been how many mass shootings in how many WEEKS????

WHY can't we do something?????

All I want to hear about is dealing with the fucking guns! AMEN!!!

Well, that might explain it.

The arch-CONservatives are with him. I wasn't expecting that. Gotta be the gun thing then. Or a perception, perhaps, that he doesn't care about the Black community so much? PLEASE note, before anyone starts wanting to erupt - I said "PERCEPTION."

Hmmm... Overall support 57% to 22%, okay, got that.

"Very liberal" 64% to 26%. Okay, got that, too.

"Liberal" 58% to 19%... got THAT.

"Moderate" 59% to 16%... quite a margin there as well.

"Very conservative" - what's this? 27% for her - and FORTY-TWO percent for him?????? Ouch!

There is one outlier - the "somewhat conservatives" do break for her a little more than for him, 37%-31%, so you can't win 'em all. But out of six metrics, she outdoes him in five. And rather decisively, at that.



Just looking at the numbers. That's all.