Jamie Raskin's Low Opinion of Women
Thank You, GOD!
Trump Slams Bad Bunny's Horrendous Halftime Show
Federal Judge Sentences Abilene Drug Trafficker to Life for Fentanyl Distribution
The Turning Point Halftime Show Crushed Expectations
Jeffries Calls Citizenship Proof ‘Voter Suppression’ as Majority of Americans Back Voter I...
Four Reasons Why the Washington Post Is Dying
Foreign-Born Ohio Lawmaker Pushes 'Sensitive Locations' Bill to Limit ICE Enforcement
TrumpRx Triggers TDS in Elizabeth Warren
Texas Democrat Goes Viral After Pitting Whites Against Minorities
U.S. Secret Service Seized 3 Card Skimmers in Alabama, Stopping $3.1M in Fraud
Jasmine Crockett Finally Added Some Policy to Her Website and It Was a...
No Sanctuary in the Sanctuary
Chromosomes Matter — and Women’s Sports Prove It
The Economy Will Decide Congress — If Republicans Actually Talk About It
Tipsheet

Forgive My Cynicism . . .

Notwithstanding the news that other candidates' passport files were breached, it would still make sense for the press to dig a bit into the backgrounds and affiliations of the people who were fired for the snooping. 
Advertisement


Jim Geraghty points out (here and here) some interesting coincidences between Clinton campaign (or pro-Clinton) rhetoric and the snooping itself.  Assuming there was any information in the files (or that people believed there might be), wouldn't it make sense for the snoopers to make sure they accessed all three candidates' files, just to cover their partisan tracks in the event of being discovered?

Maybe this really is just a case of isolated snooperism.  But it's worth taking a look.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement