Anti-Hillary Clinton political ads are writing themselves on a weekly basis. The latest source is this New York Times report that Hillary’s private email account contained sensitive information. The official name for the information is “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).
What sensitive but unclassified information did Hillary have in her private account. According to the Times, “that information included the whereabouts and travel plans of American officials in Libya as security there deteriorated during the uprising against the leadership of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.”
Considering the fate of Christopher Stevens the following year, it’s safe to say that this information was, indeed, sensitive. And it’s safe to say that it should not have been contained in an unsecure email system.
Noah Rothman at Commentary gets a head start on translating the Times’ story into a political ad. He asks: “Do you deserve to be President after jeopardizing national security?” The question, as they say, answers itself.
Rothman also reminds us of the string of false statements Clinton made about her private emails during her U.S. press conference in March:
Standing before a lectern at the United Nations, Clinton claimed that she only used one mobile device in service to her sense of entitlement while at State. We now know there were at least two devices she used to conduct State business.
Clinton insisted that her system was never “breached,” but information security experts now believe that her “homebrew” server was vulnerable to infiltration and was possibly compromised by foreign intelligence services.
Clinton insisted that she only deleted those emails that were personal in nature; a trove of communications that amounted to the majority of the emails she sent as Secretary of State. One of the recipients of private email communications, she averred, was her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Wrong, the 42nd President’s office contended. He only sent two emails in his life, according to Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, and both of those were composed and transmitted while he served as president.
Reporters, as Rothman suggests, will probably tire of this and other Hillary scandals. And once the Republicans settle on a candidate, reporters will likely train their guns almost exclusively on him.
But campaign attack ads, based on what reporters are saying now (and scrupulously sourced to big MSM outlets), should fill the gap.