In case you hadn’t noticed by now, the entire Conde Nast media empire is squarely in lockstep with the “progressive” movement. But Hillary Clinton’s inability to put away a crackpot socialist who’s never held a real job in his life is giving the liberals a severe case of agita — she let a nobody back-bencher from Chicago defeat her in 2008 and now she’s getting slapped around by an elderly Communist?
Well, as somebody once said, if they don’t want to go you can’t keep them away. So don’t be terribly surprised if you see the Democrats execute their world-famous Torricelli Maneuver and dump Mrs. Clinton for somebody who, you know, might actually win. Because things ain’t lookin’ that good for the Dowager Empress, slammer-wise:
Negative headlines about Clinton’s e-mails have seemed to be reaching critical mass in recent days. On Monday, the State Department revealed that it couldn’t find any e-mails from Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s senior I.T. staffer when she was secretary of state. Pagliano had been responsible for setting up Clinton’s private server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, making his testimony and communications central to the F.B.I. probe into any potential wrongdoing, yet four years’ worth of his e-mails had mysteriously disappeared. (A spokesperson later clarified that some number of his e-mails had been recovered from other accounts.) On Tuesday, The New York Times published an article detailing how Clinton’s State Department regularly used unclassified government networks to communicate and send classified e-mail to each other, and noted that Clinton’s private e-mail server was weakly protected compared even to these already insecure networks. The same day, The Washington Post reported that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and her lawyer had walked out of an interview with an F.B.I. investigator when she was asked questions “that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits.” And on Wednesday, F.B.I. Director James Comey forcefully pushed back against the euphemistic characterization of the probe by Clinton and her allies as a “security inquiry,” telling reporters that it is indeed an F.B.I. investigation. He declined to say whether the federal probe was “criminal.”
And this is in Vanity Fair magazine, the voice of wealthy, Leftist Manhattan.
The sudden re-emergence of Clinton’s e-mail scandal comes at a precarious time for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who has been trying to capitalize on the recent chaos in the G.O.P. to solidify her position vis-à-vis Bernie Sanders and sway potential anti-Trump defectors to her side. The F.B.I. investigation, into whether she improperly used a private server to prevent her communications from being entered into State Department records, has legitimized her opponents’ criticisms that she is untrustworthy, amplifying the impact of other, past scandals—including her husband’s—that Trump has sought to resuscitate on the campaign trail. (It certainly doesn’t help that she deleted nearly 30,000 of her e-mails before turning over paper copies of 52,000 pages of e-mails to the State Department.)
And this is in Vanity Fair magazine…
There’s also a growing fear about the timing of the F.B.I. investigation, with speculation in some corners that the results—and a possible indictment—could drop during or after the Democratic convention, causing untold damage to Clinton’s campaign. (Comey has said, however, that the investigation is not “tethered to any external deadline”.) Clinton’s on-again, off-again confidante Sid Blumenthal has suggested there’s no need to worry, telling CNN’sNew Day on Wednesday that his “understanding” is that there will be no indictment, but he has been known to have faulty intelligence before.
And this is in Vanity Fair magazine.