Bernie Sanders and the Democratic debate audience may be sick of hearing about Mrs. Clinton's "damn emails," but news sources as diverse as the NYT and Fox still think the story is newsworthy.
Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne report that the FBI is now focused on whether there was a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §793(f). That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, far more serious than the misdemeanor I noted back in August. I have copied the text of the statute at the end of this post.
Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt at the NYT note the reaction of FBI agents to President Obama's statement that "national security was [not] endangered."
Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne report that the FBI is now focused on whether there was a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §793(f). That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, far more serious than the misdemeanor I noted back in August. I have copied the text of the statute at the end of this post.
Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt at the NYT note the reaction of FBI agents to President Obama's statement that "national security was [not] endangered."
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton's email setup had in fact put any of the nation's secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
18 U.S.C. §793 (f):
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The NYTimes reporters have to, of course, take a shot at President Bush and Tom DeLay:
"Mr. Obama is not the first president to generate criticism for weighing in on cases. George W. Bush was criticized when he told an interviewer that he believed Representative Tom DeLay of Texas was innocent of illegal fund-raising charges. Mr. DeLay’s conviction was overturned last year."
The Times will often airbrush history in its coverage, e.g., Martha Coakley's disgraceful involvement in keeping Gerald Amirault in chains was not mentioned in its coverage of her ill-fated Senate run. But here, the Times will take something with only superficial similarity and add it to the coverage--you can almost hear the Times reporters say: "Bush did it too."
Of course, the Times reporters clown themselves in an effort to protect their president. First off, the DeLay prosecution was a state prosecution, not a federal investigation. And the prosecution had serious issues, not the least of which was a prosecutor fund-raising off the indictment. Second, the Times reporters give the worst possible description for DeLay concerning the ultimate disposition of the case--he was acquitted because the acts alleged by the prosecutor did not constitute a crime. (That, of course, vindicated President Bush.)
Weak journalism--but what does one expect from the New York Times?