Could you use some "Hill-arity" after a long day? On the Ed Show, Barbara Boxer claimed Republicans are going after Hillary "because they know she's exciting the public." Right. For good measure, Boxer said that she "unequivocally" trusts Hillary.
David Corn of way-left Mother Jones was surprisingly skeptical, saying that "whether Barbara Boxer trusts her or not," Hillary critics have a point because she "tainted the chain of custody."
Note: Looks like Boxer is out there making the MSNBC rounds on Hillary's behalf. Newsbuster Kyle Drennen caught her on Andrea Mitchell's show saying it was time to "move on" from the email matter. Boxer's a logical Hillary front woman, since she's not seeking re-election so doesn't have to worry about taking the political hit for defending the indefensible. Speaking with Schultz, Boxer really gave her game away when she said: "we've just got to get past this, because you could talk all day." Precisely!
Note Deux: This isn't the first time that Corn has raised doubts about Hillary's handling of the email. Last week he alleged that Hillary's people were telling him and other press member things that "are not true." Maybe Corn is just in the fold for Fauxcohontas, but even so . . .
BARBARA BOXER: This whole thing is unbelievable. They're going after Hillary Clinton because they know she's exciting the public. And we've just got to get past this, because you could talk all day.
. . .
ED SCHULTZ: I want to just--unequivocally, you trust Hillary Clinton?
BARBARA BOXER: Yes I do!
. . .
DAVID CORN: Ed, I usually agree with you, I usually agree with my friend Jon Alter. I do think this is a serious matter. I do think that Hillary Clinton did something that wasn't right.
JONATHAN ALER: I do agree with that.
CORN: Good. She took e-mails that were really the property, in theory, of the public, of the federal government, and she decided which ones to give back. Now I'm not saying she hid anything, destroyed anything, deleted anything, but I understand why people on the right-wing conspiratorial side of the coin will keep saying -- and they actually have the basis to keep saying: how do we know? How do we know? How do we know? Because Hillary Clinton sort of tainted the chain of custody here, to use a CSI terminology. And so, no matter what she says, whether Barbara Boxer trusts her or not, there will always be an element of doubt because the e-mails on the server were not handled in a clean way.
.
