I learned a few things from Andy’s excellent post and I have no objections to it, whatsoever. As I said, I have no problem with Clinton being investigated and I have no objection to the suggestion that Hillary Clinton played fast and loose with the rules — both ethical and legal. That is what Hillary Clinton does.
But I think I should clarify the point Andy gives me the benefit of the doubt on. Yes, I was too glib when I said the story is “crap.” Andy writes:
So, when Jonah says, “The Uranium One story is crap,” I take him to be talking about the story as it is being related by a number of commentators, as if it involved a major national-security crisis. (Note that Jonah is careful to acknowledge that an investigation of the Uranium One transaction might be warranted.) It is true that hyperbole about national security and treason is not helping people’s understanding of what this is about. Uranium One has never primarily been a national-security controversy. It is a corruption controversy with some national-security aspects, which are related to domestic energy supply, not nuclear weapons.
This is my position entirely. I had in mind Gorka’s comparisons to the Rosenbergs:
“If this had happened in the 1950s, there would be people up on treason charges right now,” Gorka told Sean Hannity of the so-called “Uranium One” scandal, named for the Canadian mining company whose sale to Russia’s state-run nuclear energy arm Clinton’s State Department approved in 2010. Eight other members of the Committee on Foreign Investments approved also approved the deal.
“The Rosenbergs, okay?” Gorka continued. “This is equivalent to what the Rosenbergs did and those people got the chair. Think about it. Giving away nuclear capability to our enemies, that’s what we’re talking about.”
The Rosenbergs were spies and they literally gave the Soviets nuclear capability. Russia got the bomb because of their treason. What nuclear capability did Hillary Clinton give Russia? They have nuclear weapons already.
This is the kind of talk I had in mind when I said it was dangerous, demagogic, and dippy. I will stake my record as a Clinton critic against anyone’s. But insinuating Hillary Clinton deserves the chair is insane and irresponsible.