CNN’s Effort to Explain the Differences Between Trump and Clinton Cases Goes All Kinds of Wrong

One of the things that people talk about when they talk about the unequal application of the law is the comparison of how former President Donald Trump was pursued even before he got into office. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has gotten a huge pass for all she’s done, including her private server and her own document scandal.

It’s bad enough that she got a pass. But then when CNN using former FBI official Andrew McCabe to talk about the “differences” — what he said and how CNN handled it — shows just what a problem we have. We saw how House Speaker Kevin McCarthy decimated a CNN reporter over the hiring of McCabe and former Obama DNI James Clapper.

This is truly something else — from what McCabe says to the chyron at the bottom, seemingly downplaying what Clinton did.

He said that they weren’t “classified documents” but information that was deemed to be classified — as though that somehow made a difference. It’s still classified information. He claimed that what they didn’t have was evidence that she intentionally exchanged or withheld classified information.

Then here’s McCabe with Jake Tapper who calls what Clinton did a “breach of protocol” as though she wore the wrong shoes to a State Dinner. Then McCabe insists it’s all “equal” and everything is based on “evidence.”

“In the Clinton case, what we had in the Clinton case was essentially 113 E-mail conversations,” McCabe said. “This is of tens of thousands of E-mails reviewed, the 30,000 she handed over plus many thousands more we were able to recover, 113 E-mails over the course of 55 conversations, eight top secret documents, 37 secret doc, not documents, content judged to be at that level and 10 at the confidential level. Important to note that none of that was actual documents bearing headers and footers and classified stamps and portion markings and all the sorts of things you expect to see. It was simply content of conversations that implicated information that should have been classified at that level.”

“Neither the IG nor FBI was able to uncover any evidence of .. intention to remove material, intention to withhold material, intention to essentially converse in classified ways,” McCabe asserted.

So their conclusion was the private server, the destruction of phones, the bleach bit and deletion of emails, and everything else, weren’t indicative of “intent.”

Remember this is the same guy who got canned for “lacking candor” according to the Inspector General. What was he lacking in candor about, according to the Inspector General?

The inspector general’s 39-page report found that McCabe should not have authorized FBI officials to speak with the press about the Clinton Foundation probe, as it broke with policy against disclosing an ongoing investigation. The report also concluded that McCabe was not upfront with investigators about the matter, including on three occasions when he was under oath. [….]
The report, written by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, said McCabe “lacked candor” in conversations with Comey and other officials about his green-lighting the sharing information with a Wall Street Journal reporter who was working on a story about an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

McCabe disputed the conclusions and fought the firing. But it says everything about CNN’s credibility that they would hire him as a commentator and put him forth to speak here. I guess now that former CEO Chris Licht is out, they’re not even pretending to care anymore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pure Gold: Garth Brooks Doing a Little Backpedaling After He Insulted Bud Light Boycotters

Oregon Republicans Ready to Play “Let’s Make a Deal” on Gun Control Bill?