You know you're in the midst of another concocted Clinton scandal
when Republicans, Village media
, and other perpetual critics of the most investigated couple in the history of American politics breathlessly assert that something no good, awful, and very terrible has been perpetrated, despite their inability to identify exactly what that something is.
In the midst of their caterwauling about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account and a private server while serving as Secretary of State, Republicans, Village media, and other perpetual critics of the most investigated couple in the history of American politics have been thrashing about, desperately trying to figure out if it was the inapplicable 2014 regulation, the vague and poorly written 2009 regulation, or some earlier vague and poorly written regulation, not to mention where responsibility and culpability were defined, and within what time frame. The arguments are fiercely defended, then casually tossed aside and forgotten as new arguments are floated, and the only thing that remains consistent is that desperate thrashing yearning to prove that Hillary Clinton did something no good, awful, and very terrible. As she so often does, digby got to the core of the problem:
I am going to issue the standard disclaimer that if Clinton did something real bring it on. But this is a patented pseudo-scandal planted by the Benghazi bullshit squad and I'm not jumping on the bandwagon.
If somebody wants to do an expose of Clinton's cozy relationship with Wall Street, her hawkish foreign policy or her penchant for nonsensical bipartisan cant, that's perfectly fair. In fact, it's necessary. I think a hardcore investigation into the Clinton Foundation and all its opaque financial dealings is absolutely in bounds. But when they start recycling rightwing Benghazi crapola, referencing Whitewater,talking about her "calculating Machiavellian character" and don't even have a clue about what it is she's supposed to have done wrong, just that it doesn't "pass the smell test", I'm going to be ornery. This is the Village in all its glory and I'm sad to say that a new generation of Villagers is just as willing to chase the shiny object for the Dark Ops wingnuts as their forebears.
And as he so often will be, Jeb Bush was quick in criticizing
Clinton, attempting to draw a contrast with his own ostensible transparency from his time as Florida's governor. Oops
Bush, a leading Republican contender for president, quickly jumped on the news against an expected rival, whom critics have long cast as secretive. "Transparency matters," Bush wrote Monday night on Twitter. "Unclassified @HillaryClinton emails should be released. You can see mine, here. jebbushemails.com"
Earlier this year Bush released several hundred thousand emails covering his eight years as governor, a massive archive that gave insight into his handling of sensitive issues such as the Terri Schiavo saga and into his assertive leadership style. The records were already available but Bush, putting them in an easy-to-read format, touted his commitment to transparency. But the public cannot see everything.
Bush, who used a private Jeb@jeb.org account, removed from the record those emails related to politics, fundraising and family matters.
"He's being a bit disingenuous because he decided what we saw and didn't see," said Barbara A. Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, a group that is supported by news organizations, including the Tampa Bay Times.
But the hypocrisy isn't limited to Bush. The New York Times
is playing the same game. One might even say it is complicit.
More over the fold.