In a grade-A example of CNN not caring about its credibility as a news organization during Monday’s Inside Politics, the network trotted on disgraced former deputy director of the FBI turn CNN analyst, Andrew McCabe, who was fired for leaking to the press lying to investigators about it. He was tapped to defend two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for keeping classified information on her personal e-mail server.
“I want to ask you about Hillary Clinton, your favorite topic,” quipped host Dana Bash. And after playing soundbites of Republican lawmakers comparing the situation former President Trump put himself in with that of former Secretary of State Clinton, she proclaimed: “You know, the facts. What are the facts?”
And with that, she handed the floor to McCabe to spin why the FBI, under then-director James Comey, decided not to file charges against Clinton. “Well, Dana, as you know, cases come down to facts and evidence, not politics,” he indignantly declared.
“In these two cases could not be more different on the facts. So, let's talk about what we actually found in the Hillary Clinton e-mail case,” he argued.
McCabe proceeded to downplay the fact that Clinton had classified material on her server, arguing that they weren’t hard copies of documents but rather communications of sensitive topics:
In addition to those, we found thousands more emails that she exchanged with people, the total classified materials seized from that review, were essentially 55 email conversations, strings of emails in which eight were classified top secret, 37 secret, and 10 confidential.
Now, it's important to remember those weren't classified documents that was simply the content of email exchanges that was later deemed to be classified. These weren't documents with classified stampings on the tops and bottoms and cover sheets and all that kind of stuff.
“Should it would have happened? No. But what we didn't have was evidence that Hillary Clinton had intentionally exchanged or withheld classified information. And that's just what we could and could not prove at the end of the day,” he asserted, omitting the fact that Clinton’s hard drive and cellphone were not properly disposed of.
“Thank you for saying that. Thank you for explaining that. What aboutism is very intense right now and you are somebody who definitely knows facts on this case,” Bash praised McCabe.
Ironically, a couple of hours later, CNN host Jake Tapper almost admitted that McCabe could have been indicted under the Espionage Act, much like Trump was.
Slamming Lindsey Graham for his comments about the Espionage Act to former FBI official Andrew McCabe, who lied about leaking, CNN's Jake Tapper almost admitted McCabe could have been charged: "Leaking documents to the press, you can be charged ... under the Espionage Act." pic.twitter.com/zPYXuuAtPr
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 12, 2023
As Tapper was huffing about Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) comments about the Espionage Act, he got dangerously close to McCabe’s case. “I mean, leaking documents to the press, you can be charged –depending on how serious the documents are – under the Espionage Act. But that's not espionage – But anyway,” he deflected once he realized what he had done.
CNN trotting out known liar McCabe was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Dove and LeafFilter. Their contact information in linked.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
CNN’s Inside Politics
June 12, 2023
12:23:16 p.m. Eastern(…)
DANA BASH: I want to ask you about Hillary Clinton, your favorite topic. You were deputy FBI director when there was an investigation of her and her much-talked-about emails. I want you to listen to Republicans repeatedly alluding to that, talking about that as they discuss the Trump case.
[Cuts to video]
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I don't think there should be classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, at Joe Biden's garage, on Hillary Clinton's server.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What he did is very similar in my view to what Hillary Clinton did. People in the Clinton case took a hammer to a Blackberry and destroyed it.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You had Secretary Clinton, who had classified material on a server. She was not president United States, she was Secretary Clinton. You have that happen? Nothing happens to her.
[Cuts to video]
BASH: You know, the facts. What are the facts?
MCCABE: Well, Dana, as you know, cases come down to facts and evidence not politics. In these two cases could not be more different on the facts. So, let's talk about what we actually found in the Hillary Clinton email case. Yes, Hillary Clinton maintained private servers, e-mails went across those servers. Ultimately, she returned 30,000 emails to the Department of Defense, work-related emails.
In addition to those, we found thousands more emails that she exchanged with people, the total classified materials seized from that review, were essentially 55 email conversation, strings of emails in which eight were classified top secret, 37 secret and 10 confidential.
Now, it's important to remember those weren't classified documents that was simply the content of email exchanges that was later deemed to be classified. These weren't documents with classified stampings on the tops and bottoms and cover sheets and all that kind of stuff.
Should it would have happened? No. But what we didn't have was evidence that Hillary Clinton had intentionally exchanged or withheld classified information. And that's just what we could and could not prove at the end of the day.
In the Trump case, you have what 300 plus classified documents, full documents seized from his residence at Mar-a-Lago, some of -- most of which, from the photographs that we've seen had headers and footers back, you know, this, the proper stampings portion markings on paragraphs, cover sheets indicating they were some of the most classified materials we have. And then, of course, he engaged in a long series of exchanges and activity in an effort to obstruct that investigation, very, very different facts.
BASH: Thank you for saying that. Thank you for explaining that. What aboutism is very intense right now and you are somebody who definitely knows facts on this case. Thank you.
(…)
