RUSH: The Justice Department has been asked to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. The New York Times reported this late yesterday. The request by two inspectors general follows a June 29th memo to the State Department undersecretary of state for management, Patrick Kennedy, who found Clinton’s e-mail server held hundreds of potentially classified e-mails.
Now, the Wall Street Journal sent out a news alert around 12:30 claiming that the internal government review found that Hillary sent at least four e-mails from her personal account containing classified information during her time at the State Department. Now, if it just stays at four, then the usual suspects, “Come on, let’s move on, just four, come on. Anybody could have forgotten she sent four e-mails. What is it, you people on the right, you just want nitpick everything? Come on, let it go, just four e-mails.”
But there is much more to this because, ladies and gentlemen, there might be — I hasten to say “might be” — a beginning of the fraying of the solidity of the relationship between certain elements of the Drive-By Media and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Details here in just a second.
Now, as to this New York Times story last night, The Politico reported that: “The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s State Department email account late Thursday night.
“The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation ‘into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.’ That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry ‘into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.’
So they changed “Hillary mishandled sensitive” to “sensitive information was mishandled in connection with the account.” Snerdley, when’s last time we were able to get the Times to change something they were writing about us that wasn’t true? Never? We’ve never been able to get a Times story changed? (interruption) ‘Cause we’ve told me ’em countless times, “You know, you guys had this wrong. This is nowhere near what I said,” and they just effectively hang up.
So what do you think happened here? Huma Weiner sends ’em an all-caps text telling ’em they got it wrong and they’re gonna fix it or else? My guess is the Times said: “What’d we get wrong? Send us what you think we should say.” And Huma rewrote it and sent it off to ’em. They said, “Yeah, it looks good to us,” and ran it.
Now, the New York Times also changed the headline of the story. The original headline was, “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of E-mail.” The changed headline read: “Criminal Inquiry Sought Into Clinton E-mail Account.” So the Times, in two instances, made changes that appear subtle but they’re major, that made it look like something was happening to Hillary rather than Hillary was doing something. This is once removed from the Limbaugh Theorem to explain how Obama gets away with no accountability.
The Limbaugh Theorem clearly and geniously, brilliantly, I might add, explained to people how it was that Barack Obama was able to not be blamed or even associated with actual Barack Obama policies. And this is the same thing. I mean, you got Hillary Clinton, you have an e-mail server and she’s sending e-mails, but all of a sudden the New York Times is saying, “Well, yeah, some e-mails went out from that server, but not necessarily with Hillary awareness,” or knowledge or what have you.
“As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.” They even changed the headline in the Web address, in the URL. “One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times. ‘It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,’ Schmidt said. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an email that Clinton always followed ‘appropriate practices.'”
But that may not be enough because, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Fournier is continuing to be so conflicted by Hillary and her blatant dishonesty that he’s having trouble dealing with it. Ron Fournier from Arkansas has written extensively of his deep personal respect and admiration for both Clintons born of years of being close to them in terms of journalism, writing about them. He’s just destroyed. He’s destroyed by a number of things. He’s destroyed by Mrs. Clinton’s lack of attention to detail, her out-and-out lying, and I think it really boils down to he’s having to face the reality that this woman is nowhere near as competent or brilliant or whatever as her reputation. And it’s a serious wake-up call.
His headline, story today in National Journal, “Clinton’s Conspiracy of Secrecy Worthy of Criminal Probe.” He’s not happy writing this. I’ll give you a couple of pull quotes. Number one: “Here’s all you need to know: The Clinton campaign doesn’t — and can’t –deny the nut of this story. Two Obama administration inspectors general want an investigation into whether her personal email system contributed to the release of classified information.” We now know they did, they found at least four e-mails. And she’s lied about this. That’s coming up.
The second pull quote from Ron Fournier: “When she’s not blaming the media, Republicans, bureaucrats, and technology — everything and anything, except the dog who ate her email — Clinton is destroying her credibility. ‘There is no classified material,’ she said. Wrong. ‘Everything I did was permitted,’ she said. Wrong. ‘People should and do trust me,’ she said. Wrong and wrong. A majority of people don’t trust Clinton, because a majority of people aren’t blindly loyal to her or on her payroll.
“Most people can sift through the spin, the lies, and the parsing to see the bottom line: She secreted and deleted her email for reasons we may never know. And she’s blaming everybody but the only person responsible for this mess, the only person who can clean it up: Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
And then over here. This is from HotAir.com. I don’t know who posted this. It doesn’t say here. Oh, it does say here. Ed Morrissey, our old buddy Ed Morrissey. He’s chronicling F. Chuck Todd, who is pointing out that Hillary lost any moral high ground when she refused to turn over that server. F. Chuck was on MSNBC earlier today, he said, “Now, they just gotta hope nothing is found.”
Look, the inspectors general are Obamaites, folks. I mean, this is not the Republicans doing this. Let me be clear about that. ‘Cause I’ll bet you a lot of people think this is the Republicans going after Hillary. The Republicans don’t run the executive branch. Obama runs the executive branch, and these inspectors generals, they’re independent, supposedly independent, but they’re not the Republicans. They’re both. They’ve asked for an investigation into potential criminal behavior and the release of classified data, and four e-mails have been found despite all of Hillary’s lies and assurances that nothing of the sort happened.
It was just yoga. It was just carrot cake recipes and wedding invitations and seating charts and stuff like that. There’s nothing to see here. That’s what Hillary has said. Now, F. Chuck’s saying that they better hope nothing is found here. What they’re worried about, I don’t think that in the case of both Ron Fournier and F. Chuck Todd, I don’t think they’re bothered by the fact that Hillary is lying or by the fact that Hillary is corrupt. They applaud those things when liberals get away with it. Like when Clinton lied every time he opened his mouth, they marvel at how well he did that.
When it involves defeating Republicans and conservatives, it doesn’t matter, as long as that happens, these people are heroes, and that’s why they’re getting worried about Hillary. They’re getting worried that she may not be able to win now. And if she can’t win, she’s gonna become worthless to them. They’ll tolerate anything. They’ll tolerate lying. They’ll tolerate corruption, whatever it is. They’ll tolerate the dog ate my server, but they will not tolerate if they think she’s showing weakness and is telegraphing that she could be beat. And I think that is really what started to settle in.
Remember, all this is happening just a few short days after this horrible series of polls in swing states that showed Hillary just doing horribly, not just in mock-up elections, but in approval numbers, respect, honesty, I mean, bottom of the barrel on all but one category. So this is all a cumulative effect. And remember, my whole theory on this is that Hillary Clinton, without this kind of massive party and media support, left to herself, she’s gonna bomb out every time she tries. Because don’t forget, every time she opens her mouth, her poll numbers go down.
The more she speaks or public appearances that she does (imitating Hillary), “I ain’t no ways tired. I have miles and miles to go before –” The more stuff like that she does, this awkward joke telling and the inability to be charismatic and just natural sounding. She’s robotic out there.
Without people to pump her up over that and make her appear as a fait accompli, she can’t do this on her own. At least that’s my view. I’ve always held that view. I never have subscribed to this Superwoman meme they have attached to Hillary. If they begin to think that she can’t win or that she’s showing weakness, well, she can’t survive without a whole big apparatus covering up for her by also focusing on the evil of her opponents.
They may be getting to the point now, folks, where the D by her name on the ballot may not be enough. It’s just these two guys, but I’m telling you, we heard earlier this week that there is a rising level of nervousness and discontent within the bowels the Democrat Party leadership. So we’ll see. But let’s just go to audio sound bites just to remember all this.
March 10th, 2015. This is Hillary at the United Nations. Former secretary of state, press conference, to talk about the scandal surrounding her using a private e-mail server, not a government server, not the government system, not the State Department system, and during the Q&A, remember this was a horrible appearance, they had to cut this thing short by like a half hour ’cause she was doing so bad.
And remember, they had this at the UN because they figured the UN press corps would not be nearly as up to speed on all this as a domestic news press corps. They shockingly misjudged that, the UN press corps was up to snuff. So this reporter, unidentified, said, “Were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own e-mail server and using your personal address to e-mail, say, with the president?”
HILLARY: I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware, uh, of the, uh, classification, uh, requirements and, uh, did not send classified material.
RUSH: We didn’t edit any of that. I mean, that’s Hillaryspeak. “I did not e-mail any, uh, uh.” And but she did, and two IGs want the details. They found four so far. Here’s a little bit more of what she claimed.
HILLARY: We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work related e-mails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails, e-mails about planning Chelsea’s wedding —
RUSH: Oh, yeah.
HILLARY: — or my mother’s funeral arrangements —
RUSH: right. Yoga.
HILLARY: — condolence notes to friends —
HILLARY: — as well as yoga routines —
RUSH: Yeah, right.
HILLARY: — family vacations, the other things —
HILLARY: — you typically find in in-boxes.
RUSH: We now know none of that’s true.
RUSH: Graham in Gainesville, Florida, I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the program today. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. It’s great to talk to you. I was just wondering if you think that this potential DOJ investigation into Hillary’s server just could be the Obama administration’s opening salvo putting the kibosh on her campaign.
RUSH: I don’t have any idea. And I wondered about this, too, I mean, after all of this mileage on this, after all of this, all of a sudden we get this out-of-the-blue over the transom thing that a couple of inspectors general want an investigation ? So we have to assume that these guys have been looking into this for a while, but whatever Obama’s role in this — I know why you’re asking, because this is all happening in the executive branch, and if he didn’t want it to happen, it wouldn’t be, I’m sure you think.
CALLER: Right, correct.
RUSH: So I don’t know. I don’t know why Obama wouldn’t want Hillary. I don’t know why he would want her. I don’t have enough information yet to really be safe predicting that, even suggesting it. But I will admit to you that it kind of hit me as a surprise, ’cause I thought everybody was in CYA mode on this at the Regime, at the State Department. But look, folks, I think there is a truism here that has been kept from a lot of people.
The Democrat Party and the media have a major, major task each and every day, and that is myth-making. They have to manufacture myths and magic about their policies. And I think they have to do the same thing about many of their people. The Kennedys. Ted Kennedy was a reprobate, but look what they were able to do with image-making and so forth. I just wonder how really popular Hillary Clinton is. Look at 2008. It was supposed to be her coronation, and they threw her overboard for the first person that came along that they thought might be able to beat her, Barack Obama. I think there’s trouble in paradise there, and there has been for a while.