We here at Legal Insurrection have done a lot of work in the fight to shine light on the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal. Allegations of national security breaches, cover ups, and outright lies have Clinton’s camp circling the wagons, and her supporters grasping at straws when confronted with questions about Clinton’s system of records she used while serving as Secretary of State.

Today, Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream grilled former Congresswoman and Hillary Clinton surrogate Ellen Tauscher over the allegations, and Tauscher’s reaction all but spelled out exactly why conservatives are still pushing this issue.

Watch:

BizPac broke it down:

Bream asked what distinguished Clinton’s case from those of former CIA Directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who were both prosecuted under the Government Records Act.

“They’re completely different,” Tauscher insisted, claiming that Clinton never received any classified information on her personal server, adding that others can “quibble about whether things should be reclassified,” and called the controversy an exercise in “partisan politics.”

Bream pointed out that two inspectors general reported that at least 30 emails containing obviously classified information on foreign governments were found on her server.

Tauscher eventually admitted that “mistakes were made” after Breamed continued to press her, but continued to argue that Clintons case is completely different from those of Deutsch and Petraeus.

I think it’s safe to say that Hillary’s camp isn’t just worried—it’s freaking out.

Have your doubts? Look at Tauscher’s face. Look at it (Screen grab via Althouse):

Tauscher face

So here we are, with two competing narratives, neither of which provide absolution, and neither of which push the cycle against advocacy groups and activists hammering at the constant flow of excuses coming from State and the Clinton campaign.

First, we have (as seen in this video) a surrogate claiming that nothing of note happened—but even if it did, Clinton should not be held accountable because it was someone else’s responsibility to ensure that sensitive information was kept secure.

The second narrative is lazier, but at least doesn’t bold-facedly confront and then cast off accusations of fault on the part of then-Secretary Clinton. Last week, I sat in a courtroom and watched DoJ attorneys attempt to bank their arguments on the fact that Hillary Clinton has taken an oath swearing that she did nothing wrong.

Her surrogates want to pass the buck. The DoJ wants us to take her word for it.

Neither option is flying, either amongst voters or in the media. This is the smoke—and I can guarantee it will lead us to a big national security bonfire. We just have to have the patience to keep digging.

Featured Image h/t Althouse