A May 5 NBC News online story reported that the infamous Rumanian hacker called “Guccifer” had revealed “in an exclusive interview” with correspondent Cynthia McFadden that Hillary Clinton’s secret private e-mail server was “like an open orchid on the Internet,” and that he hacked its contents with ease. It has been noticed, however, that NBC interviewed Guccifer during his pre-extradition detention in Rumania, at least a month ago. It was not until yesterday, when Fox News broke the news, also as an “exclusive,” that Guccifer, a.k.a. Marcel Lehel Lazar, asserted from a Virginia jail that he had repeatedly breached the former Secretary of State’s in early 2013, that NBC let the story out.
Observations…okay, rueful and pointed observations:
1. The possible role of Guccifer in investigating the Clinton email mess was first raised by Fox News last month. Naturally, it was buried by the left-biased news media ( you know, the rest of it) as “a conservative media story,” except that NBC knew it was true, since the network already had Guccifer’s interview. Nevertheless, NBC allowed its non-coverage to imply that Fox was just manufacturing more “smoke” regarding Clinton’s possible--likely, if you are honest, which most Clinton supporters are not by definition—breach of national security laws, as that faux news network is wont to do.
2. The venom with which progressive shills attack Fox News is damning in light of incidents like this one. Perhaps they are really so hopelessly corrupt and totalitarian that they want the news to be manipulated, censored and distorted to avoid letting the public know how inept and corrupt Democrats are. Without a right-leaning news service, the left-biased news media would get away with burying stories like this.
How could that possibly be good for the country? For all its many flaws, everyone should be grateful for Fox News.
3. Gee, I wonder why NBC would bury a story that bolsters the widespread and reasonable belief that when Hillary Clinton says, often laughing that creepy, Cruella de Ville laugh of hers, that no foreign hackers had plumbed her server—like she did just the day before, on MSNBC—she is lying her head off, and that when the President also says that “he’s sure” that no national security data was breached, he is assisting in a cover-up? Why would an objective, fair, news organization do that? Especially when Clinton is still trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, and when increasing numbers of the public say that Hillary’s e-mail lies have added to their conviction that she isn’t honest or trustworthy? I mean, it’s a mystery, isn’t it? Why would NBC do such a thing, and just hold on to the story until the New York primary was over and a rival network was about to scoop them? I just can’t imagine, can you? There no conceivable, rational explanation, unless, and of course this is absurd, NBC is trying to slant its reporting to assist Clinton and protect the Democratic frontrunner.
But it can’t be that! That would be unethical journalism.
4. Clinton’s camp’s response to Guccifer’s claim actually made me laugh out loud. In a statement to Politico, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon (no relation to Jimmy) said,
“There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell. In addition to the fact he offers no proof to support his claims, his descriptions of Secretary Clinton’s server are inaccurate. It is unfathomable that he would have gained access to her emails and not leaked them the way he did to his other victims. We have received no indication from any government agency to support these claims, nor are they reflected in the range of charges that Guccifer already faces and that prompted his extradition in the first place. And it has been reported that security logs from Secretary Clinton’s email server do not show any evidence of foreign hacking.”
Hilarious, don’t you think? Who is more credible on this topic? Is it the Presidential candidate who hid the existence of the server, then claimed she had complied with all laws, rules, and regulations, then said that she had neither sent nor received any classified documents (after she destroys about 35,000 that nobody but her lawyers ever saw), then changed that to “no documents ‘marked’ classified,” and who has since defaulted back to the original spin that other Secretaries of State did the same thing (none had private servers), that “it wasn’t the best choice,” and that the whole controversy was a Republican plot? Or is it more reasonable to believe a hacker with no political loyalty to either U.S. party who already hacked her private e-mails once, and who gains nothing from his claims?
Hillary obviously doesn’t know an Apple from a kumquat. What are the odds that her spokesperson is able to say what is accurate or inaccurate about an e-mail server? The rest of this obligatory denial sounds like classic, “Oh yeah? Well you can’t prove it, copper!” bluster.
We all know Hillary Clinton is probably lying if her lips are moving. There’s no reason to assume Guccifer isn’t the most trustworthy individual in this dispute, is there? He’s in jail? The Clinton camp dares to play that card? Heck, if Guccifer a political ally in the White House and a corrupt and politicized Justice Department protecting him, I bet he would be able to avoid prison just like Hillary has.
5. Still, the biggest news, or confirmation is perhaps the more accurate term, is that Donald Trump can expect no fairness from the news media at all, and probably a new low in unconscionably biased coverage is on the horizon. After all, the main-streamers slammed their fists down on the scale in 2008 and 2012, I assume because they were seeking their version of the greater good by any means possible. Now they have someone unquestionably and objectively horrible to keep out of power.
Who knows how far they will go?