Martha Raddatz seriously needs an intervention for her obsession with the three miserable mismarked Clinton emails which she claims, "resonate" with American voters.
How could they not resonate, when we have reporters and Sunday show moderators who have glommed onto them like a leech, sucking all of the blood out of our political discourse, after all?
On ABC's This Week, Martha Raddatz interviewed former acting CIA director Michael Morell this morning.
After Morell confirmed his contention that Trump is now nothing more than an unwitting agent for Vladimir Putin, Raddatz let that drop in favor of what she considers a more pressing issue for the nation: Benghazi and the emails.
From the transcript:
RADDATZ: So why should America trust her to be commander in chief since she did expose intelligence to foreign governments and passed classified and very top-secret information back and forth?
MORELL: Yes, just one comment on what I said previously.
Since then, the FBI has said that they found no evidence that a foreign government hacked into her server.
RADDATZ: But they didn't rule it out.
Dear Martha Raddatz, get a clue. No evidence of a hack is no evidence of a hack. No qualifiers apply. There is simply NO EVIDENCE.
Morell then made a statement which should have been a Breaking News banner over at ABC.
MORELL: But I think there's a bigger issue here. I think there's a bigger issue here, right?
I worked with her for four years very closely when she was secretary of state and I was at the CIA. I provided her -- personally provided her some of the most sensitive information that the Central Intelligence Agency has.
She never misused it. She always protected it. I would trust her with the crown jewels of the United States government. And, more importantly, I would trust her with the future security of the country and the future security of my kids.
Wow, that's quite a statement to make right there. And from a former acting CIA Director, even. They're not known for their propensity to trust the politicians they serve, after all.
Raddatz, however, was undeterred. Absolutely undeterred. Funny how she doesn't give up on that when she was so willing to give Rudy Giuliani a pass.
RADDATZ: But I've got to say again, this is resonating among the voters. Many, many voters I talked to talk about those e-mails. And this week, when she said that FBI -- that Director Comey said everything she said was OK to the American public, he didn't really say that.
So do you think she's handling this well?
MORELL: So I think there's actually a simple explanation here, right?
You know, when she saw those e-mails, she did not see classification markings.
Why?
Because there wasn't any classification markings --
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: I know there's no classification markings.
(CROSSTALK)
MORELL: -- and there -- they were very small. So when she says there wasn't classified information, that's what she means. It wasn't marked. And the two that were marked with little C's, right, she doesn't remember. So she's not trying to mislead anybody.
This is ridiculous. We are literally making a choice between a mentally unstable fascist who wants to deport 11 million people and discriminate on people based upon their religion, and a woman who received three emails that had classified (mis)markings when they did not actually contain classified information and Martha Raddatz wants to draw some kind of equivalence between the two?
Shame on you, ABC.
