Commence the Mad Dash For The Memory Hole

Hot Air is breaking bad news for Hillary (and Matt Drudge is lining in red, but not in the headline):

Whoa: Hillary e-mail instructs aide to transmit classified data without markings

If this holds up (and the Usual Suspects are surely working to be sure it doesn't), this is a bombshell.

Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

That should be game, set, and match, yes?

Let's see - even though the email is from "H", aka "HRod17", that isn't Hillary? Or wasn't, since sometimes fall guys loyal aides sent emails from her account?

Or does the legacy media imagine they can muster a nine month segue to other topics? Bill Clinton's one-man War on Women, maybe? Or maybe not, despite an opportunity for deplorably sophomoric "undercover" and "going commando" quips.

Over at Town Hall Guy Benson explains that the "not marked classified" defense was always disingenuous anyway. As if the SecState couldn't be expected to guess that some material was obviously meant to be classified, marked or not. Still, finding out that even that defense was a lie should be a big deal. Yuuge, actually.

In any other investigation the Feds would conduct a roll-up, offering the underlings reduced charges or immunity in exchange for testimony against higher-ups. Can AG Loretta Lynch keep the FBI corralled on this? Stay tuned!

GOOD QUESTION: Who is more troubled by this revelation, Hillary or Uncle Joe? Feel the Bern!

UPDATE: The NY Times has the right lead but a snooze-button headline:

New Hillary Clinton Emails Released by State Department

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISJAN. 8, 2016

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waited for a set of talking points to be faxed to her, a top aide told her the delay was due to problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

Off to a good start, but then it is back to sleep:

The note she sent to a top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to send sensitive information in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

But that and other messages provide a window into Mrs. Clinton’s approach to handling email and other communication — at times cavalier, at times calculated to ensure that they would not fall into the wrong hands. She even expressed some umbrage at an officer who, like herself, had used a personal email address for official business.

At times "cavalier"? This just in - the allegation is that her conduct was illegal. Or is the FBI investigating "cavalier" conduct these days?

 

Comments

[narciso]

typical, of course they move to Carlos Slim's like Haberman and Martin, and on to other venues,

http://twitchy.com/2016/01/08/so-pathetic-politicos-take-on-damning-hillary-email-is-just-bad-journalism/

[pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter]

JiB, @05:35 you are 100 % right. My guess that is why the Obama regime is so eager to get rid of the A-10s.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I don't think Cecil has questioned the effectiveness of the A-10.
He has questioned its survivability in a war zone more advanced than guerillas throwing rocks and RPGs at them.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

To be fair the AF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a long time prior to Barry.
I personally, considering the conditions we're likely to continue to encounter, think the A-10 should be kept operational and perhaps even transferred to the Army if the AF wants to dump em so bad.

[Jack is Back (but On Alert)!]

iggy,

You mean the AF poltiical officers and commanders under the auspices of the Lockheed-Martin juggernaut v. the small office confines of Republic-Fairchild.

I think in this issue I have seen more of how the Defense-Industrial complex and political muscle works than most. Pathetic.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

OK JiB, but you gotta admit little ol' Fairchild still has their planes flying. :)

[narciso]

well what's a suitable replacement platform, for tank busting?

[Cecil Turner]

That bird and the Thunderbolt A-10 do more to protect ground forces than any other air asset no matter what Cecil will tell you.

If you define "ground forces" as US Army personnel, no argument. If you factor in the fact Marines never see 'em, then it's less compelling.

A dirty little secret is that the USMC provides far more air power per grunt than the Air Force provides to the Army. Hence the ongoing argument over whether "excess sorties" belong to the Marines or higher headquarters (note they never argue about "excess" AF sorties).

As to the merits of the A-10, it has survivability issues and is having the typical support costs associated with a plane that's getting long in the tooth. They probably ought to be retired in favor of a (Hellfire/TOW) missile platform, but their political popularity is such that is unlikely in the near term.