“It is not fair to blame Clinton for this particular high-handedness—she was not involved in this discussion [related to the use of her own private server]... [or] in creating this climate of [State Department] acquiescence.” - The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus
Right out of the gate, Hillary fallaciously claimed the server was Bill's. Let's recall reality, the facts Ms. Marcus is completely oblivious to. In September 2015, Mrs. Clinton then told NBC's Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”: “[The server] was already there. It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House.” Unfortunately for her, Mr. Clinton's habit of not using email had already been disclosed to the WSJ that previous March: “The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman.” (It doesn't take a rocket scientist to logically infer that Bill Clinton probably doesn't like keeping physical records of his activities. Perhaps a understandable bias developed from his intern-chasing Monica Lewinsky blue dress days?) In any case, in this latest version of the big lie, Ms. Marcus contents herself not with blaming Bill, but faceless flunkies at the State Department.
Of all the confederacy of dunces at The Post, this columnist should read her own newspaper, specifically the Taking Exception editorial “What secrets are hidden in Ms. Clinton's emails?” by Michael Canes of McLean. He writes:
“The Post should probe the email issue much more deeply. And it needs to question whether Ms. Clinton, having abandoned her responsibilities with respect to email communication while secretary of state, is still a qualified presidential candidate. It may conclude that the alternatives are worse, but it shouldn’t turn a blind eye toward how badly Ms. Clinton has betrayed the public trust and how much more dangerous the email issue [stolen state secrets] may yet turn out to be.”
However, Ms. Marcus is doing the opposite—her darnedest to spin Hillary's leaden political prospects into fool's gold—that the electorate ain't buying. And that, certainly, is an errand of a colossal dupe. For the law in this matter is crystal clear: under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for any federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Contrast that unambiguous statute to the schizophrenic tone of Ms. Marcus's latest column. A missive so tortured, nonsensical and bereft of reason it would give the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland” pause. Specifically, her “journalism” is so yellow she is nothing more than a propagandist talking head for the Clinton campaign, reiterating the same bold-faced, threadbare lie that Mrs. Clinton's email server was set up to keep her personal emails private. This is the same tall tale Hillary's been spouting for over a year. Pick your Clintonian poison pill as explanation: her actions were approved by the State Department, other Secretaries of State had “done the same thing,” that she wanted the convenience of accessing all data on one device. Make no mistake, she's Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey in “House of Cards”): a real-life F.U. in a skirt.
So the State Department's own inspector general's report of Mrs. Clinton's clearly forbidden and blatantly law-breaking activities isn't a smoking gun? If that's not unequivocal evidence of wrongdoing to the shockingly thick Ms. Marcus, what, if anything, is? She can't recognize truth or relevancy here with a GPS and a divining rod. Ms. Marcus quotes a trivial Hillary email, her “I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible,” as a spurious distraction from the patently indefensible. For Ruth Marcus, the Democratic front-runner has suddenly become Greta “I want to be [left] alone” Garbo. Speaking of “smoking guns,” did anyone put one to Hillary in her relentlessly single-minded pursuit of ever higher government posts? Like Mrs. Clinton's loony imitation of a small yelping dog, the political spotlight has been her personal chew toy for the last 25 years. Therefore, she knows very well that privacy is the cost of public life. (Let's all cry a river for Mrs. Clinton's “sacrifice.”) More common sense that utterly escapes Ms. Marcus's baseless scribbles.
Hillary, this rules-don't-apply-to-me queen bee, is imploding under the weight of her own Server-gate scandal. In this regard, Mrs. Clinton's actions—whether intentional or not—are beside the point. A now more and more likely national security breach by criminal hackers and/or foreign powers is deadly serious. Therefore, it's far more than simple “bad” judgment or a violation of protocol, it's treasonous.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't belong in the White House, she belongs in the big house. Thus is humpty dumpty tumbling from her most lofty perch: the Democrats' nomination for president. And just like the fairy tale, all the king's horses (read: Mr. Obama) and all the king's men (read: the sycophantic MSM's Marcuses of the world) can't put ol' cracked, crooked Hillary back together again.