Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

Hillary Can’t Even Censor Her Own Emails Right – State Has To Play Clean-Up For Her

So I need to make a correction.

I was wrong in thinking Hillary was smart enough to figure out which e-mails to release to the public and which to destroy. But they can’t even get that right.

Not only are we getting hoodwinked by Hillary’s camp in pretending they’re releasing a treasure-trove of e-mails, demonstrating her transparency, or some such nonsense, but Obama’s State Department is going in and cleaning up after those e-mails.

The Weekly Standard is reporting the State Department redacted a line in an e-mail about Syria.

Among the emails released by the State Department today was one sent by Hillary Clinton to Jake Sullivan on April 8, 2011. Clinton was forwarding a private intelligence report that Sidney Blumenthal had sent her with the subject line: “UK game playing; new rebel strategists; Egypt moves in.”

In the State Department release today, Clinton responds with “FYI” and a sentence that is redacted.

But the New York Times posted its versions of the emails earlier this week and the sentence is not redacted. In the Times‘ version the redacted sentence reads: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”

The redaction in the State Department version is labeled a “B5” Freedom of Information Act exception, which provides for a “deliberative privilege” in keeping the information from the public.

The obvious question: Why did the State Department redact that sentence?

That’s a great question, and the folks at weasezippers.us proffer an idea

We had ‘private security experts’ operating in Benghazi at the behest of the government, who many have supposed were helping to arm the opposition. If one saw that sentence in the email, it would appear to be Hillary endorsing the impermissible at the time, interfering in the war in Syria.

Maybe the better question is, why is the State Department redacting this? There is nothing classified in that sentence. The only reason for redacting it would be to clean up after Mrs. Clinton.

And that makes sense. But what is amazing is that Hillary – who has amassed a small ballroom of loyal lefty brainpower* in her lifetime in politics – can’t seem to even be sleazy the right way.

If you’re going to pretend you’re transparent and open – and release cherry-picked e-mails, don’t you’d think you’d make pretty damn sure those e-mails aren’t going to be given the red light by your former State Department?

Jeez, Louise. No wonder she wants a “do-over.”

* Maybe that’s the problem … is it still only enough brainpower for a nightlight?