- Share on Facebook 1
-
1 SHARES
"Journalist" moves goalposts to position of "TBD." https://t.co/xopFSKOF1N
— Just Karl (@justkarl) July 25, 2015
It's Hillary, forgeddaboutit! https://t.co/DUIjYbXf4c
— John Sexton (@verumserum) July 25, 2015
CNBC and NYT political reporter John Harwood has obviously heard the reports that Hillary Clinton did in fact deal with classified information on her private email account(s) on a homebrew server. What can anybody prove something bad happened as a result?
assume HRC received email that was "classified" even if not marked that way. any evidence/allegation of national security harm as a result?
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) July 25, 2015
Just imagine that kind of cover being thrown for a conservative in the same boat. Harwood’s question is great in that it helps point out how Hillary operates above the rules (and consequences). The “little people” don’t have that luxury.
"Assume Person X drove drunk for four years, but made it home okay so far as we know. No biggie, right?" https://t.co/aoXMXmE4MB
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) July 25, 2015
Maybe not if Person X were a liberal presidential candidate.
Rubio sits on the Sen. Intelligence Cmte, yes? Would you be as dismissive if he was accused of the same? Serious Q. https://t.co/V1FMd33Wiu
— TraderRLH (@TraderRLH) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood Are you really trying to rationalize her illegal behavior?
— The Real Bepo (D) (@TheRealBepo) July 25, 2015
File under things not said by Left Wing Media regarding David Patraeus https://t.co/PY6QkRSqCG
— Rob Tam (@robtr2) July 25, 2015
Seriously, this is one of the dumbest things ever tweeted https://t.co/APkYwY0Icm
— The H2 (@TheH2) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood Reporters define their jobs differently than they used to.
— Joel Engel (@joelengel) July 25, 2015
.@JohnJHarwood 4 of 40 sampled had classified info. That would be 5,400 emails of 54,000 she had. At least. https://t.co/xsomaAQfQj
— el Sooper ن (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood how would we determine that there's been no natl sec harm wout her server to check?
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood seriously are u this naive? By being on a private server we have NO idea if Russia China etc hacked in to server! Wake up.
— Marc BC (@MarcBC10) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood One rule for elite liberal democrats, another rule for these rest of you.
— Me in Jersey (@Me_In_Jersey) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood It’s a felony regardless. If I did the same thing, I’d go to jail. Are those laws just for the little people?
— Will Collier (@willcollier) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood that is NOT the criminal standard. Are you a reporter or a partisan hack?
— TakingHayekSeriously (@FriedrichHayek) July 25, 2015
@JohnJHarwood look, this ENLISTED guy was just charged 4 similar acrions http://t.co/jY6T4FRSOE Why shouldn't she be held to higher standard
— ChuckJ (@ChuckxJ) July 25, 2015
Even if @HillaryClinton has pictures of you dressed as Little Bo Peep, I cannot excuse stupidity of that question. https://t.co/lOnf7icvnw
— Robert D. (@bostonrob9) July 25, 2015
Let’s just ignore the fact that she did the wrong thing. Instead, let’s pretend some hypothetical question matters! https://t.co/5B8gPpncOx
— Mike Beasley (@MikeBeas) July 25, 2015
She SENT it, John. Not just received. https://t.co/RfLUqwi5Vz
— Matthew DesOrmeaux (@cynicusprime) July 25, 2015
It doesn't matter. It's still a violation. If I did this: Lose clearance/get fired @JohnJHarwood https://t.co/22qFA8MBLm
— The 57th State ℅EF™ (@EF517_V2) July 25, 2015
Nah. They just classify random shit. There's never really a reason for it. https://t.co/2we6XJP3mZ
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) July 25, 2015
I'm sure every govt employee ever fired over this kind of thing glad to hear "it did no harm" is now the standard. https://t.co/bWY8RIHeZq
— KeepCalmAndDrawl (@FormerlyFormer) July 25, 2015
I dunno. Maybe we could ask General Petraeus https://t.co/Pujsjb18oO @JohnJHarwood
— Michele Frost (@michelelfrost) July 25, 2015
.@JohnJHarwood By all means, let's now base all mishandling of classified material based solely on proving harm. That'll end well.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 25, 2015
Gee, if I had mishandled classified info I'd have gone to jail. But I guess HRC is special cuz she's liberal. @RadioFreeTom @JohnJHarwood
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) July 25, 2015
@KurtSchlichter I was explaining this to more than one person yesterday. Rank and file would get charged. @RadioFreeTom @JohnJHarwood
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) July 25, 2015
@EdMorrissey Hillary thinks this is a good thing. It's the sort of reason people don't trust her or the govt @KurtSchlichter @JohnJHarwood
— Tammy Bruce (@HeyTammyBruce) July 25, 2015
@EdMorrissey @HeyTammyBruce someone needs to ask Hillary why an enlisted man is held to higher standard http://t.co/jY6T4FRSOE
— ChuckJ (@ChuckxJ) July 25, 2015
.@JohnJHarwood I find it amazing that you are paid for your thoughts on subjects of importance
— Matt (@Matthops82) July 25, 2015
@Matthops82 For a "journalist," @JohnJHarwood seems to have asked no one w/ experience what happens to people who spill classified info.
— Just Karl (@justkarl) July 25, 2015
@justkarl @Matthops82 @JohnJHarwood There must be a new "no harm, no foul" rule where it's okay unless you can prove bad secrets were stolen
— I. Dindoo Nuffin (@realmyiq2xu2) July 25, 2015
In defense of @JohnJHarwood, this isn't NECESSARILY a rhetorical question. https://t.co/jPnljncmTh
— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) July 25, 2015
@jamestaranto Hard to read @JohnJHarwood any other way. If he didn't mean it rhetorically, why wasn't he trying to answer it as a reporter?
— Joel Engel (@joelengel) July 25, 2015
Yesterday, someone had to tell you what "splooging" meant. Today, we have to tell you what "classified" means? https://t.co/KcUgKjazQr
— KSpetz (@kspetzman) July 25, 2015
Unfortunately that’s true. What will tomorrow bring?
Editor’s note: This post has been updated to include additional tweets.
