Read time: 3 minutes

Judith Miller Wants More Hillary Email Scrutiny Because Benghazi!

Judith Miller and Fox's Jon Scott think this scandal is worth revisiting no matter how much the evidence says otherwise.
Views:

Lynn Sweet and Jon Scott joined the aiding and abetting Judith Miller to discuss the Hillary Clinton Email-Ghazi obsession afflicting so many on the Right. Lynn came to Hillary's defense, in an appropriate manner.

But the Fair and Balanced Network needed a contrarian to oppose Sweet, so who's better than Cheney's BFF, Judith Miller? Judy desperately wants to demonize Democrats, the most coveted being Candidate Hillary Clinton. She considers any minutiae significant enough to warrant her attention, whether it's true or not. Miller said,

"What we're missing here is the bigger picture: That Hillary Clinton, whether or not the Times got the facts of the story wrong, has huge potential legal and certainly political problems for the handling of the email, and if I were Hillary Clinton's Press Secretary, I would want to divert attention too, to what the New York Times did or didn't do and how fast it did it. Look, we already know that she had 60,000 emails, of which 30,000 were turned over to the State Department, the other 30,000 she destroyed...

We also know that there's the mysterious disappearance of two months of emails just around the Benghazi attacks. I mean, there are so many issues here and problems, so for me, the question is, why didn't the media get on this story sooner? Why did it take until the New York Time's original story about the existence of a private server in her private home?

Following Miller's contention that no one has given this story enough attention, Jon Scott began proselytizing over the felony charges of General Petraeus regarding classified military information that he leaked to his mistress. How is he convicted of a felony while Hillary Clinton escapes such a fate? How could David Petraeus be the subject of a criminal probe, while Mrs. Clinton wasn't subjected to the same process? The New York Times printed one of the weakest non-apology apologies.

It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.


↓ Story continues below ↓

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

Lynn Sweet was given the last word and she admitted the Times was definitely at fault for their shoddy fact-checking and reporting, given their vast resources to prevent such a mistake. Before Miller could argue, mercifully they cut away to Hillary's speech in Miami yesterday, where she bashed the disingenuous GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric and lack of compassion to the Black Lives Matter movement while touting her support of lifting the Cuba trade embargo.

Funny that the object of the speech that followed this segment was Jeb Bush, who had his own private server and destroyed the evidence without any fanfare from the New York Times. I also missed the exposé on Scotty Walker's secret router.

If Hillary is fair game, so are these other two candidates, neither of whom suffered the slightest scrutiny of their integrity. All the News That's Fit to Print should be changed to: All the News That's Fit to Satisfy Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.