NY Times endorses Hillary in the middle of her missteps

Timing is everything.

On the same day The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, The Associated Press is reporting that 22 of her emails on her unsecured server were top secret and Investor’s Business Daily reveals she also destroyed Whitewater records, just as she has with Benghazi. Irresponsible? Serial destroyer? Indictable?

“Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe,” the Timesmen/women enthuse.

Hillary Clinton (NYT photo)

The AP editorializes in its news story, “Independent experts say it’s unlikely Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on details that have surfaced so far and the lack of indications she intended to break laws.”

Intended? In this case the criteria might be reckless negligence.

IBD reports that Hillary Clinton’s subpoenaed but missing Rose Law firm billing records mysteriously showed up on a hallway table in the White House in January 1996 — after the statute of limitations had expired.

Those records had been in Vince Foster’s office at the time of his suicide, but Hillary Clinton and others hauled the records to a closet in her office, approximately 30 feet from the table where they were found two years later.

Also today the NY Times gave a backhanded endorsement to Ohio Gov. John Kasich for the Republican nomination. Yes, we are sure Republicans everywhere were anxiously awaiting the Times’ pick.

“Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race,” the Times opined.



President 007 to his subjects: None of your business who I kill or why

President Lincoln concluded that famous speech that the world would little note, nor long remember by praying “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The current administration might be of the people and even for the people, but it sure as hell is not by the people when the reasons for decisions of life and death about U.S. citizens can be kept from them by the most transparent administration in the history of the universe.

Drone strike

This past week a federal judge denied requests from The New York Times and ACLU for access to a Justice Department memorandum outlining the legal justification for drone assassinations of U.S. citizens, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a strike in Yemen in 2011. Both the Times and the ACLU promise to appeal.

In a speech in March Attorney General Eric Holder made this contorted argument: “Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

While the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, the Sixth guarantees a public trial — not a judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into one person, without any checks or balances between the three branches of the federal government.

One of the lawyers for the ACLU, Jameel Jaffer, said, “This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens and also effectively greenlights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures.” The whole truth and nothing but the truth? Nah. If you thought Lincoln’s denial of habeas corpus was wrong …

Here are a couple of graphs from the ruling by Judge Colleen McMahon that reveal a certain level of frustration with Alice-in-Wonderland nature of her own ruling and the Catch-22 in which the law entraps her:



When the government is hiding something, you know they’ve got something to hide.