Weasels Also Use Email Whenever They Get Good Access

Candidate for Photo of the Century (maybe)

Before you ask and before reading the post, no, the above photo is not a fake, and has not been photo shopped. A British man snapped the now-viral photo of a baby weasel hitching a ride on a woodpecker.  The story is here from Martin Le-May who says he was out for a walk with his wife in a London Park, when they heard a “distressed squawking,” looked up, saw this sight, and snapped the pic. Kudos to Mr. Le-May. I then thought that photo would fit nicely to my post for today, which I refuse to call “Hillary's email-gate.” But, a lot of GOP and Rightwing weasels are sure trying to hitch a ride on that story and milk it for all the air miles they can muster.

The AP has filed a lawsuit (FOIA) today against the State Department to force them to release emails and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state just one day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account.

The AP is seeking copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars as well as documents related to her department's decision to grant a special position to longtime aide Huma Abedin (*Anthony Weiner's wife). Also, emails from longtime advisers Philippe Reines and Cheryl Mills, who, like Abedin, will likely play central roles in a Clinton presidential campaign.

National Security is strongly in view here and caution in the release of info is critical – and yes, agencies do need some secrets…. And releasing secret documents is always a dicey proposition,

The lawsuit seeks materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid, and NSA surveillance practices.

State Department spokesman declined to comment saying State’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests — 19,000 last year — always does its best to meet all FOIA responsibilities., adding it’s a strict policy of “first in, first out” and the that timing also depends on “the complexity of the request” on a case-by-case basis and finishing by saying the whole process will take several months to review and once the review is complete, they will be posted online.

Clinton said she sent and received about 60,000 emails from her personal email address in the 4 years (2009-2013) that she was Secretary of State adding that roughly half were work-related, which she turned over to the State Department, while deleting tens of thousands more that were personal in nature (deaths of relatives, birth of granddaughter and personal emails between her and Bill Clinton). 

Meanwhile across town as it were this very good coverage from MediaMatters: “How Not To Cover A Scandal: 4 Media Outlets Walking Back Reports in the Clinton Feeding Frenzy”  

The New York Times: 

1. Insinuated that Clinton Broke Law With Use of Non-Government Email. In a March 2 report they insinuated that Hillary Clinton “may have violated federal requirements.” Their key source was Jason R. Baron, who claimed that Clinton's “exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual.” (Fact: she “s not the first government official - or first secretary of state – to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business.”) [The New York Times, 3/2/15]

2.  Key Source Undercuts Central Claim, Saying Clinton Didn't Violate The Law. According to CNN's political producer, the Times' key source Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that Clinton did not “violate” the law after the Times article was published. [CNN political producer Dan Merica, 3/3/15, via Twitter]

3.  Public Editor Admits Original Story “Was Not Without Fault.”  The Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan, responded to criticism of the paper's initial reporting stating the story “was not without fault” and “should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated.” [The New York Times, 3/8/15]

The Associated Press:

1.  Reported a “Mysterious Identity” Linked to Clinton Emails on “Homebrew Server.”  They initially alleged that a “homebrew” email server, used to transmit Clinton's emails, and registered to her home in New York, was traced “to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham,” noting that the name Eric Hoteham doesn't appear in public records. [Associated Press, 3/4/15]

2.  Walks Back “Mysterious Identity” Behind Clinton Email Account and Allegations of Clinton Running a “Homebrew” Server. Later, they shifted from claiming that the server “traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York” to stating: “It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton's home computer server was run.” Acknowledging the server was registered to Eric Hoteham, the AP clarified that Hoteham was an aide to Clinton and considered “one of the family's information technology experts” and that his name was actually spelled Hothem. [Associated Press, 3/5/15]  

The Washington Post: 

1.  Initially Implied State Department Was Reviewing Whether Clinton Violated Security Policies. On March 6, their report suggested that the purpose behind a State Department review was to determine whether Clinton's use of a private email account “violated policies designed to protect sensitive information.” [The Washington Post, 3/6/15]

2.  Forced to Clarify the Purpose Behind State's Review.  Erik Wemple (at the Post) pointed out a later version of the article significantly changed the headline and updated language to clarify that the purpose of the State Department's review of Clinton's email was "to determine whether they can be released to the public, adding that while the initial headline “asserts a purpose behind the review,” the second headline “suggests that any such finding would be incidental.” [The Washington Post, Erik Wemple Blog, 3/6/15]

Politico: 

1.  Asserted that Clinton's Private Email Violated “Clear Cut” State Department Rules from 2005.  On March 5, they claimed that Clinton's use of a private email account was at odds with a “clear cut” 2005 policy used to “warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work.” [Politico, 3/5/15, via Internet archive]

2.  Clarified Limits of the 2005 Policy, Which Does Not Automatically Apply to Use of Personal Email. An updated version of the Politico article quoted a State Department official who explained that the 2005 policy “is limited to records containing such sensitive information” and added: “Reports claiming that by using personal email she is automatically out of step of that FAM are inaccurate.” [Politico, 3/6/15]

I know this post is long and maybe even a bit dry and boring (I hope not boring),  but I wanted to document it as much as possible before the FOIA’s are honored and we see the emails released on-line as State said, so here is my conclusion and quick view:

FOIA requests for official stuff from officials in government at all levels, yes; I have no problem with that. But, is it necessarily just to get requests for “all” that could include personal information /private talk as it were. So, who gets to decide which is which about “all being released?"

That is a key question.

However, what we do not need (from anyone) is a witch hunt just for the sake of another witch hunt. Why does the AP seem to have a need (or suspect there is a reason for a new FOIA) about the Osama bin-Laden raid and NSA domestic snooping. Both of those areas have a very long and detailed traveled road with a ton of paperwork. \

Looking for something new just for the sake of looking, or hoping to find Zebras in a forest – well, Zebras don’t live in forests, and hoping to find dirt for another scandal that ends up nowhere – a non-starter for me unless the result were Earth-shattering and this about Hillary’s emails is just that, I believe.

So, welcome to the 24/7 instant and rapid 30-second news we need now so we can all hurry up and watch and get to the next “hot” tip in Amerika that looks more like one great big expansion of a Hollywood gossip page. 

George Orwell would have a field day living in this era.