You’d think that at this point liberal pundits would be eager to move on from the Hillary Clinton email server issue. But a full six weeks after the election, they’re still harping on it. Why? Several reasons, in my estimation. First, many of them staked their professional reputations on insisting that the entire matter was a “nothingburger” — yes, that was the elementary school term they collectively settled on — and that it shouldn’t dissuade Democratic Primary voters from supporting Hillary, in whom they had an undying, almost cult-like faith. Bernie Sanders supporters who noted that this thing could prove politically damaging for Hillary were deemed un-Serious and naive. So it’s in the pundits’ interest to keep pushing the “nothingburger” interpretation, even as they simultaneously claim that contingencies arising from the email server investigation actually cost Hillary the election.

Think about that. It’s a dramatic paradox. The very same pundits who scolded and derided anyone who warned that this complex felony investigation could pose major political problems — I can personally attest to the scolding — now claim that the “nothingburger” was in fact so consequential that it caused Hillary to lose the election. That’s the dominant narrative being espoused by everyone from Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, to David Brock, to Hillary Clinton herself.

So it’s in their interest to assign fault for this situation — where the election could hinge on an email server investigation — not to anyone who actually had a direct hand in causing it, such as Hillary or her inner circle. (Recall that Cheryl Mills, one of the top Hillary lieutenants, privately advised Hillary not to run on the ground that the email server issue would be such a grave impediment.) No, the Kevin Drums of the world now want everyone to believe that Hillary lost due to the latest incarnation of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Sidney Blumenthal, who coined the phrase back in the 1990s, has reiterated this theory.

Again, this is all about deflect, deflect, deflect. Clinton loyalists in the media like Drum, who hitched their fortunes to a candidate who was manifestly corrupt, legally-blemished, and ill-suited to the national mood, don’t want to accept any blame at all for their role in the fiasco. They want to keep blaming other factors, even if their “blame game” narrative is fraught with obvious contradictions.

The person to blame for the Hillary Clinton felony email server investigation is Hillary Clinton herself. She didn’t need to run. She wasn’t owed the presidency. There were plenty of other qualified and competent people who could’ve attained the Democratic nomination and probably beaten Trump. That she chose to run notwithstanding her severe legal problems was a mark of total hubris and a gratuitous, unrelenting desire for power. Full stop.

Also to blame are the Democratic Party media functionaries who spent 1.5 years spouting the “nothing burger” narrative, lying over and over again about the nature of the investigation — remember “security review”? — and smearing those of us who contended that the FBI investigation could have serious political ramifications.

I went on Democracy Now! back in May and made exactly this case:

It wasn’t hard to foresee.

The entire upper echelons of the Democratic Party and Clinton loyalist crowd appear to think that James Comey’s malevolent “intervention” on October 28 was “purely political” (in the words of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne) and intended to damage Hillary at a critical moment. That’s a convenient narrative for these people to cling to, because it absolves them of responsibility for circling the wagons around such a tremendously flawed candidate, but unfortunately for them it has no grounding in facts. As I’ve argued over and over again, there is zero reason to believe that anything Comey did was improper.

Comey’s issuance of the letter on October 28 didn’t violate any laws and by every available measure was completely warranted due to the change in circumstances. In fact, Comey issuing the letter was a fulfillment of his duty, as he pledged repeatedly in sworn testimony to Congress that he would apprise the relevant Committee chairpersons if there were ever any change in the status of the Clinton email investigation. When a change in status occurred, he did just that. I never hear any of the pundits or operatives screaming about how treacherous Comey cost Hillary the election acknowledge that he had an affirmative obligation to notify Congress. The screamers and whiners apparently would’ve preferred that he instead conceal critical information from the American people, meaning they take a fundamentally anti-transparency position for no other reason than transparency happened to damage Hillary in this particular instance.

Now they’re harping on the newly-released search warrant that was executed on Anthony Weiner’s laptop to prove that the basis for Comey’s actions was “flimsy.” But this is an egregious and cynical misreading of the situation. First, if you actually read the search warrant and accompanying affidavit (which I doubt any of them did) you will see that the contents therein easily constitute grounds for probable cause, which is all that’s needed for a search warrant.

Democrats and liberal pundits deceived themselves and the public about the nature of this felony criminal investigation from the beginning, thus their bewilderment when it blew up in their faces on October 28. That’s their own fault, not Comey’s or anyone else’s. Big babies.

I for one am happy to keep litigating this for as long as it takes.

—

Are you feeling cheerful this holiday season? Consider a contribution via Medium, GoFundMe, PayPal, or Bitcoin.