When they go low, they then go lower. And lower. And lower. And lower...
The Hill Reporter is out with an article claiming that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s security clearance (along with those of five of her aides, including Cheryl Mills) has been revoked at Clinton's request. And now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has pulled a major dick move, because he is, you know, a dick. Also: he doesn't give a shit about national security, at least not if he can squeeze a vote or two out of one of his low-information constituents.
Clinton requested the revocation back in August as an apparent preemptive strike against the GOP after former CIA Director John Brennan's own clearance was revoked by Trump for violating national interests by daring to go on TV and admit that Trump is in reality the dangerous, corrupt lunatic we all know him to be. The Hill reporter article speculates that Clinton wanted to disable Trump's ability to use the imminent revocation of her clearance as a political cudgel. Not that he would ever do anything like that.
In the letter Clinton sent to Grassley requesting the revocation (PDF), she included the following paragraph:
"We request that you protect the information in this letter, as it is not public and generally not appropriate for public release. Therefore, we note that the public release of any portion of the enclosed information is not authorized by this communication and, should you wish to disclose any portions thereof, we ask that you provide the Department with a reasonable opportunity to inform the Committee of any sensitive information that should be safe-guarded."
Reasonable, right? Polite. Professional. Deferential, even. And definitely not demanding. Just a "please don't release this letter unless you have a REALLY good reason for doing so, but if you do be sure both the Republicans and Democrats on the Committee have a chance to look over everything first in the chance that something in the letter compromises national security."
But that apparently wasn't good enough for Chuck Gr-asshole-y, who--hyperpartisan asshat that he is--took it upon himself to release the letter without running it by the Committee (at least the Democratic members), and sans redaction aside from the names of four of Clinton's aides.
Dick move.
So, now the United States loses the services of yet another highly experienced and knowledgeable person for purely partisans reasons. (That'll doubtless come in very handy when Trump puts some kindling and a match to the Reichstag.)
Yay, us!
The next time *anyone*--looking at you, Chuck Schumer--suggests that "we need to show continued civility and understanding to our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle", or who claims that the weakness we see displayed by some of our Democratic leaders is simply hopeful bipartisanship, I believe I might vomit. The GOP is about nothing but power and money, and they will do anything they can to leverage the former to get more of the latter so they can get more of the former to get more of the latter. And so on. For that reason alone, the party needs to be destroyed. The GOP needs to be burnt to the ground, pulverized by a billion rollers, bulldozed under a mountain of dirt and rock, and that mountain needs to be salted and irradiated so the cancer buried beneath it can never regrow.
And i you don't believe that, my friend, you are simply not paying attention.
P.S. - Oh, I almost forgot: fuck you, Sen. Grassley.
UPDATE: Sorry I’ve been absent most of the past many hours; I closed on a new place last evening, and met with the principals and agents to sign everything. Thanks to everyone who’s commented and/or recommended; I am humbled, as always. But I have seen a number of comments stating that my headline is misleading, and some of those comments have vehemently insisted I change it immediately lest all my credibility be destroyed.
Sorry, but I’m not changing it.
The headline states nothing untrue or misleading: A) Clinton’s clearance was revoked, and B) Grassley is playing politics with that revocation. Those two facts are true, and those two facts are in the headline. Now, some have complained that because the headline doesn’t also say that the clearance was revoked by her request, it’s misleading.
Here’s the thing: if you’ve ever published here, you know that diary titles are capped at 100 characters. That’s not enough room to write the entire story, which is fine; it’s assumed interested folks will read not just the headline but the diary underneath as well. Even so, the headline went through several iterations, but I couldn’t figure out a way in just 100 characters to state that a) Clinton’s clearance was revoked, b) that it was revoked at her request, and c) Grassley was being a dick about the whole thing. So I went with the headline you see, as one of the things they taught me back in my news days was to capture eyeballs, then tell the story.
However, in the interest of not misleading anyone, I made sure to mention that the revocation was at Clinton's request in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph:
The Hill Reporter is out with an article claiming that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s security clearance (along with those of five of her aides, including Cheryl Mills) has been revoked at Clinton's request.
Then, I repeated that the revocation was at Clinton's request in the very first sentence of the second paragraph:
Clinton requested the revocation back in August as an apparent preemptive strike against the GOP...
Then just to make absolutely certain that nobody could possible feel misled, I repeated that the revocation was at Clinton's request in the very first sentence of the third paragraph:
In the letter Clinton sent to Grassley requesting the revocation...
I hope this satisfies everyone. And, again, thanks!
