Nom De Plume Ethics: Yet Another News Flash The Mainstream Media Is Burying To Protect Clinton And Obama

"Time to e-mail Hillary..."

“Time to e-mail Hillary…”

From Politico….

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials…In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

I chose Politico because it is a left-leaning political website and because its story, which is virtually word for word the same as similar reports on conservative sites like those of the Washington Times and and The Hill, includes the intriguing words “and others” that the conservative sites mysteriously omit.If Obama only used the pseudonym to communicate with Hillary, it would strongly suggest that he knew she was using an insecure private server all along, and that he tacitly approved it. Obama denied that last year, when he told CBS News that he learned about the home-brewed server from newspaper reports. It would mean that he lied, and would indicate that Obama was a full and knowing participant in Clinton’s efforts to hide her communications from scrutiny by Congress and public  FOIA requests.

Politico’s “and others” suggests that Obama may have used nom de plumes for some other reason. All right…what “others”? What reasons? Politico doesn’t say. Did the conservative sources leave out that detail to make Obama look bad? Did Politico put it in to protect him from public suspicion? We don’t know, because no liberal-leaning, mainstream media source has yet relayed this new finding arising from the latest Friday afternoon document dump.

Surely this is news that the public has the right to know. Why hasn’t it been widely reported on, especially the part where Hillary’s own top aide asked, “How is this not classified?'”

If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, are you really comfortable with the fact that journalists are hiding and manipulating the news to avoid showing the full dishonesty and corruption of your candidate, as well as the complicity of Barack Obama in allowing this misconduct by his Secretary of State?

If you are comfortable, what’s the hell’s the matter with you?

I’m not comfortable with a lot in this matter. I’m not comfortable that I can trust neither the conservative media to give the facts straight, nor the liberal media not to bury stories that reflect poorly on their political darlings. I’m not comfortable that the President of the United States may have been part of a conspiracy to avoid transparency by his Secretary of State; you ‘ll recall that Josh Earnest demanded that reporters give Obama the credit due him for delivering on his transparency pledge, one of the most gutsy endorsements of Orwellian reality in US history. I’m not comfortable that like my fellow Americans, there is literally nobody I can trust to tell me the truth, and I am especially uncomfortable that so many of my fellow Americans are so hollowed out of courage, integrity, intelligence and principle that they don’t give a damn.


8 thoughts on “Nom De Plume Ethics: Yet Another News Flash The Mainstream Media Is Burying To Protect Clinton And Obama

  1. “IT WOULD MEAN THAT HE LIED, and would indicate that Obama was a full and knowing participant in Clinton’s efforts to hide her communications from scrutiny by Congress and public FOIA requests.” (bolds mine)

    In related news: water’s wet, heavy things tend to fall, and my 31 inch waist is AWOL.

  2. Too late to impeach Obama for this particular impeachable offense… But nevertheless, I would welcome watching the attempt, if only to further degrade and tarnish whatever “legacy” he hopes to leave.

  3. What’s this story say about Eagle Scout James Comey? And what about the FBI’s granting immunity to Cheryl Mills? Maybe he granted immunity to HRC? Maybe they provided cookies and milk for the interview of HRC?

    Jack and Sparty, how’s the “nobody in government knows anything about computer security” theory holding up? The President wasn’t kept within secure guidelines by his aides? Were they immunized as well? The government can’t even keep the President’s communications secure? There’s no mens rea here? Just move along?

  4. On Saturday’s ‘Fox & Friends,’ former NYC mayor and U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani comments on Friday’s document dump of even more Clinton emails. Also on Friday, Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other members of her staff were granted immunity deals in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state

    “The thing about yesterday’s revelation that really shocked me was… it looks like the FBI is conducting this investigation for the purpose of giving immunity,” Giuliani said.

    “Rhe FBI can not grant immunity, they have to get approval from the Justice Department. So, the Justice Department, run by Loretta Lynch, who was sitting on the airplane with Bill Clinton, was the one who approved those immunities,” he explained.

    “The whole point of an investigation is to investigate to see if a crime was committed. Maybe you give one of the [suspects] immunity, if it was. The other people, you have them plead guilty, and then you prosecute the case against the main culprit — in this case Mrs. Clinton.”

    “I found the first Comey report impossible to understand,” he said about the FBI Director’s report on Clinton’s emails. “He laid out a perfect case of intent. First of all: A clear case of negligent use of material, which is a flat out violation. A felony. But here is how we prove intent: False statements, destruction of evidence. You don’t prove intent reading your head, we look at your actions.”

    “A false exculpatory statement is evidence of guilt,” he concluded. “Destruction of evidence is evidence of guilt. It is just common sense. Those both happened en masse.”

    “I don’t understand how, after reading [Comey’s] report, and now watching these Friday afternoon political hack putting out of information. It is disgraceful. To give immunity to so many people… The violations here were so many, so often, so gross. I don’t know if we’ll ever get another case like this.”

    “One of the things he said during his news conference to justify himself was: We’ve never had a case like this. He’s right! We’ve never had a case of this kind of massive exposure of top secret and confidential information to our enemies, during a period of time when we know they’re hacking left and right.”

          • “It’s war…until the war is over, anything is legal.”

            “Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office.”

            Based on the above Rudy Guliani quotes, I’d say his analysis of “what sound a doggy makes” is suspect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.