How to read the Washington Post

Last week the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky reported on the meeting of Cheryl Mills and her attorney with one or more FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers. The interview appears to have taken place in connection with the FBI’s li’l old “security review” of Hillary Clinton and her private email server. Mills and her attorney took a hike when the FBI agent asked a question beyond the scope of the interview.

It’s not long but it’s a mysterious story that is difficult to read properly. I had it open on my computer all week trying to figure it out.

I was annoyed by the Post’s obligatory propaganda on behalf of Clinton. Zapotosky states, for example, “So far, investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing.” Zapotosky and the Post to the contrary notwithstanding, the evidence of Clinton’s criminality is hidden in plain sight.

The Post’s servility to Clinton on this point, however, is not even the half of it. Zapotosky shows no effort at having tried to understand what is going on, or to elucidate it.

Bringing his prosecutorial experience and legal expertise to bear, Andrew McCarthy dissects the story in the NR column “Clinton emails: Is the fix in?” Taking off from Zapotosky’s article, McCarthy’s column provides an excellent review of what we have learned from Clinton to date and an educated guess at what we can expect from the Department of Justice in the future. It also provides a master class in how to read the Post. If you have been following the case to date, McCarthy’s column is must reading.

Responses