Carville to MSNBC: Let's face it, you and the Times are in the tank for the right on this Hillary e-mail thing

Via the Corner, here’s Clinton errand boy Serpenthead demonstrating how right I was last week in thinking the new Democratic spin on E-mailgate is “who gives a sh*t?”

There’s a saying among lawyers that when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; and when both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. The facts are against Carville. Hillary didn’t even make a pretense of proper e-mail protocol by setting up an official State Department account, and she didn’t turn over e-mails from her private account until two years after leaving office. (That’s a key difference between her and Jeb Bush, as is the fact that Clinton’s e-mail likely included sensitive natsec info on a regular basis.) The law is against him too. It’s been State Department policy since 2005 to conduct official state business on official state e-mail, a policy reinforced by Hillary’s own directives as Secretary. (That’s a key difference between her and Colin Powell, who left the State Department early that year.) So enjoy eight minutes of Carville pounding the table, insisting that notorious conservative media outlets like the New York Times and MSNBC (and Gawker?) are once again cooking up nothingburgers about the Clintons based on trumped up right-wing talking points. This guy actually has the balls at one point to offer the old complaint that there’s one set of rules for the Clintons and one for everybody else as a complaint on their behalf, as though the Clintons are routinely held to a higher standard than average pols rather than a lower one. Think about that. The diplomatic wing of the United States government admitted last week that it has no idea whether its archive of Obama’s first term is complete because its access to Hillary’s work product is completely under her control. You’d go to prison if you withheld sensitive information like that. As it is, Hillary’s (probably) going to the White House. And this jackhole can’t stop whining about how hard the Clintons have it and how unfair the media is.

Make sure you watch the clip in Ed’s post of fellow Clinton errand boy Lanny Davis echoing many of these same who-gives-a-sh*t points, which is proof enough that Team Hillary has sent around a script to its most reliable toadies. Ed raises a good point by e-mail too: If there’s a script, why not have Her Majesty sit for an interview with someone and run through it herself? Why farm it out to unctuous water-carriers like Davis and Carville? What makes it even odder is that reporters have gotten less shy lately about calling out tiresome spin doctors like those two and David Brock on their filibustering. Chris Wallace all but called Davis an errand boy in their interview; Andrea Mitchell barely seems to be taking Carville seriously here. When you invite a Clinton mega-shill on, you know you’re not going to get the truth or even artful spin, you’re going to get pure, straight, who-gives-a-sh*t combativeness. (The ultimate example may be Phillippe Reines, who usually does his screaming at reporters off-camera.) That’s a weird difference between Hillary toadies and Obama toadies like Robert Gibbs or David Axelrod, who managed to carry O’s water without reaching that frenetic level of defensiveness that characterizes so many of Hillary’s most irritating lackeys. Can’t wait to have all these people close to the seat of power again.

Update: Good point by Matt Lewis about the mega-shillery for Hillary by Davis, Carville, and Brock. Don’t the Clintons have any Democrats willing to carry their water who aren’t retreads from 20 years ago? One of the reasons the media’s losing patience with them is that they’ve been hearing the same crap from these same three guys literally for decades. Surely there must be someone who wasn’t in politics in the 1990s who’s equally willing to fall on a grenade for Hillary. Note to Team Clinton: If you don’t want Hillary being called “old news,” find some surrogates who aren’t themselves old news.