Discussion: AP Sues State Department For Access To Hillary Clinton's Records

Discussion for article #234191

This is nothing more than manufacturing “news”. State already said they’re gong to put it all on the intertubes after reviewing it, and they will no doubt just produce the same documents they put on the internet to the AP. AP will then be int he same position as the Teatrolls in terms of demanding everything that supposedly exists and wasn’t produced. There will be some withheld items for which State claims privileges, including state secrets or national security, etc. They’ve essentially filed the suit a day late.

All this does is give AP and the MSM a lawsuit to talk about to help them fill the 24/7 whirling information vacuum they’ve created. It strikes me as a blatant attempt to up the ante for the story’s sake and to increase the potential influence it has in 2016…or at least give them the ability to opine that their lawsuit has done so…nothing more.

9 Likes

This is just more political masturbation.

State is reviewing the emails for release, so the lawsuit is moot.

All AP has now is a bad case of High Dudgeon—which can be cured, but only if AP really wants help.

“The press is a proxy for the people, …”

Sorry about that, but the corporate press relinquished that claim years ago; if there was ever anything to it from the beginning.

4 Likes

I don’t know if it’s a residual slime from Ron Fournier’s days as its Washington bureau chief, but I’ve noticed AP - which used to be scrupulously down the middle - becoming more partisan these days.

5 Likes

Calling AP winger hack Nedra Pickler…

2 Likes

WTF? This is pure nonsense. She’s already said State will release them once they’re vetted for security reasons.

Won’t this just get thrown out of court?

Did they sue Colin Powell for his deleted messages–not one of them is in existence now. I don’t recall them being so anxious.

4 Likes

But Colin Powell was a “war hero” and therefore "beyond reproach."Hillary on the other hand is a Clinton. You know what that means; after all, when did Colin Powell ever make the front page of the “Enquirer” or the “Star” accompanied by scurrilously dubious headlines? Therefore AP as a proxy for “THE PEOPLE” has a god-given right to know absolutely everything Hillary does every given moment of the day, up to and including what kind of shmear she prefers on her breakfast bagels.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but to my mind, the press has a nasty habit of targeting particular individuals for peculiar scrutiny; often because the press has decided their targets are self-righteous, too intellectual or too boring [e.g., Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore] or famous people who are suspicious of the press and exclude the press by zealous guarding of their privacy [e.g. the Clintons]. Such people need “to be taken down a peg or two.” This doesn’t excuse what ever peccadilloes that their targets are “guilty” of, whether it’s Powell’s lying before the U.N. or Hillary’s missteps (and I’m not excusing them). But, it reveals a hypocrisy and inconsistency of approach that dissuades a reader such as myself from taking the corporate press very seriously.

2 Likes

The press is going to report on what they deem newsworthy.

Hillary should have known years ago that if she used her private emails the press was not going to just look the other way.

That’s laughable. The press is going to report on what they can manufacture to be newsorthy, sometimes there is newsworthy stuff out there, but more often than not, they create the news, rather than report or investigate it.

1 Like

It is no conspiracy, certain individuals are targeted more frequently.

I’d also add that the coverage doesn’t fit the crime ( I’m not suggesting the email situation is in any way a crime.) Powell’s dishonest testimony about weapons of mass destruction helped start a war where Hillary’s email woes are mere political stumbles. It should be clear to a fair media which story deserves coverage.

Unfortunately, the main street media is the media where most people get their news.

Hillary is and always will be their target. The fact that she knows the press will be after her - yet she still does these stupid things- makes her a very risky candidate for a very important election.

Frank Rich understands the danger here when he writes: “That it took Clinton as long as it did to respond to the rising chorus of these questions, and that she did so as defensively and unconvincingly as she did, is yet more evidence that she’s not ready for the brutality of a presidential campaign.”

3 Likes

When is the last time that we actually received news from MSNBC/CNN that you could not find on Google news? So, when they can’t find anything that is “sexy” enough, they create their own, or exploit (over and over) like CNN did for the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and now MSNBC on Hillary. I had to laugh today’s Morning Joe, Joe would not understand that all federal employees have the right and obligation to separate their personal information that is on a phone that also is used for professional business. I am a federal employee and we have annual training on the obligation. Joe and Mika could not understand that rule, it is for all federal employees but they don’t think Hillary should be able to do so. Willie read them the regulations, and they still stated that Hillary should not have deleted her personal e-mails, something all federal employees are requested to do. During the possible shutdown, we were told that the agency was going to contact us on our personal phone by text. I have received text from my supervisor on my personal phone, so should I have to give all my text, e-mails on my I-phone to be reviewed by the Freedom of Information officer for the agency?

1 Like

Fine. Maybe you are right. But the press is what it is. Do you think they read your post?

Hillary should have known years ago that if she used her private emails the press was not going to just look the other way.

Colin Powell’s emails are gone. They don’t exist. “The press” doesn’t care at all. “The Press” has not demanded every email from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…

“The press” is not the press. They do not represent the people. They are not “reporting” on what they deem newsworthy. They are flinging shit into a fan and watching it turn into money. And I’m not just talking about this story. Watch your local news. Chances are, there will be a story about someone who dies, a fire, and either a health scare or scandal. Why? Because those are the things that our brains are wired to pay attention to. And when we pay attention, we end up watching advertisements. Same thing here. AP is suing for something that’s going to be public. Does that really sound like news? Does it need to be an article? No. But we all clicked and generated ad revenue for the site.

Tell you what…when Colin Powell decides to run for president…let me know! Same for cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al

Hillary is. And she should have known, before setting up all this email stuff, that her moves and motives would be examined by friend and foe alike.

Illegal? Who knows? Damaging to security? Maybe. Poor judgement on her part? Certainly!!!

We have put our eggs in Hillary’s basket. She had a responsibility not to do something stupid that would let us all down.

1 Like

No, of course the press does not represent the people. But it informs the people.

Inconvenient truths sometimes get disclosed to the people.

What is the alternative? Muzzle the press and keep the people uninformed?

The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

What caused the delay here, particularly the 2013 requests?

1 Like

So the emails of an elected official are only important if they’re running for President? Otherwise, we don’t care if they, for example, started a war under false pretenses?

Ok. Let’s use your criteria. Is the press suing to get to the emails of any Republicans who might be running? No. Only Hillary Clinton. Jeb Bush released his emails…except for the ones he didn’t. What’s he hiding? Did he do something illegal that he’s hiding?

As for this part: “Illegal? Who knows? Damaging to security? Maybe. Poor judgement on her part? Certainly!!!”

Illegal? We do know. It absolutely wasn’t illegal.
Damaging to security? No.
Poor judgement? She did at least what other people have done, and did it better than some. She kept all her official emails, where at least one other person in her job didn’t.

And she didn’t let you down. It’s not like you’re voting for her, or you’re a fan of hers.

  1. I would vote for her in the general, but I REALLY don’t want a Republican president. After this, I am convinced that to nominate Hillary is to elect a Republican. So I hope a more electable Democrat steps up to the plate.

  2. [quote=“qwedswa, post:19, topic:17844”]
    She did at least what other people have done, and did it better than some. She kept all her official emails, where at least one other person in her job didn’t.
    [/quote]

I have always thougt the “other folks did it” excuse to be lame. Other folks masterbate in public. Other folks spit in public. Other folks pick buggers. Other folks have lynched blacks. Other folks have written Ayatollahs about not being able to trust Obama. You can always blame insanity on others doing similar stuff. Who cares if someone did it better than some? Somehow, I was hoping for something different in a president.

She didn’t keep all her official emails. She erased whatever she decided was appropriate. Too late now to verify.

I have not been able to find a reason for the long delay in providing these documents. The Freedom of Information Act required action here. Has Hillary had anything to do with the delay?

This sounds…wrong:

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment. He had previously cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests — 19,000 last year — in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.”