Link.
UPDATE, 1:43 CT: The news media are waiting for Hillary to show up. Here's a live feed. Hillary is late, and there are hundreds of reporters, so of course, they're all filling the air space with lots of talk about Hillary and her emails.
UPDATE, 1:50: What's up with all the flags in front of Picasso's Guernica? Bad visual jumble, but the setup for Hillary's speaking is to the side of that, with a neutral backdrop.
UPDATE, 2:01: Hillary tries to focus the press onto the Iran letter, then turns to the email controversy. 1. She "opted for convenience." 2. "The vast majority of" her work email went to work email addresses and were therefore preserved. 3. She has provided the State Department with all her emails "that could possibly be work related." She seems to be conceding that she has destroyed her personal email. (How are we to know what she shunted into that category?) 4. There's a fourth point, something about wanting things to become public.
UPDATE, 2:05: The first question is from a Turkish reporter, asking why she didn't use 2 different devices... and also whether she's getting attacked because she's female.
UPDATE, 2:07: Andrea Mitchell asks how she decided which emails were public and why people should accept her being arbiter of what was public. Hillary says she's "very confident of the process that we conducted" and that Americans will be satisfied because they'll see the email that is going to be released. These are nonanswers, of course. The questions make the point and hang there.
UPDATE, 2:09: Hillary is asked if she will say that she made a mistake and, if so, what she's learned from that mistake. She says even if she'd had 2 devices to keep work and personal separate, people could still question her decisions what to put on the personal device. There is no real concession of a mistake. "The server will remain private."
UPDATE, 2:12: A questioner raises the oddness of having her own server. Hillary says it was set up for Bill Clinton's office, which made it secure in a way that other private servers might not be. "I feel that I've take unprecedented steps."
UPDATE, 2:14: How do we know you didn't delete work emails? "I went above and beyond what I was requested to do... and people will judge for themselves." (I'll have to finish this later... I've got to run to class.)
UPDATE, 7:12: I'm back. I've watched to the end. There wasn't much more beyond what I'd already described, and it's really too boring to belabor. Maybe tomorrow morning, I'll make some distanced observations. For now, I'm done with this.
१० मार्च, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१५ टिप्पण्या:
215 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Are there enough TelePrompTers ?
Give my regards to Broadway
Remember me to Herald Square
Tell all the gang at Forty-Second Street
That I will soon be there
Let me guess--she'll offer to release all e-mails, which one of her minions will sift through and selectively edit.
Even if she DID offer to have a nonbiased third party have total access to her e-mails in order to weed out the purely personal ones (or ones that contain privacy protected information of other people) this doesn't really get around the main problem--for six years, her official State Dept emails were not in the Dept's secure systems and were not subject to FOIA requests. There is no excuse for this, and it's hard to believe this was just a screwup. Her underhanded entitlement is the problem here and that won't be fixed via press conference.
I think she is trying to get out a statement before too many people know what questions to ask.
Hillary will, for a time, in answer to any questions, refer back to what she said today.
This won't be the last press conference or statement about this from Hillary.
Nixon made very, very many statements about Watergate.
So Hill is keynoting a Women Principles Empowerment event and taking questions afterward.
Will someone please ask if she supports penii in her locker room? At least penii attached to those with sincerely held beliefs that it should not be attached. Let's see if she punts the penis question.
And yes, I know the plural rules do not support the ii ending, but penises is just so pedestrian for so grand a topic.
It should be mentioned that, as of now, the State Department has no intention of going back to old Freedom of Information Act requests and seeing if new information fits within the request.
Anyone who thinks there might be something in there will have to make a new request.
And the e-mails are not searchable - it's only paper printouts.
There are now reports that her server also may have have been traveling around, or there may have been more than one server. There is no assurance that it, or they, was, or were, in fact located in her house in Chappaqua; it, or they, might have been anywhere.
What does the press expect. She's not getting her Clinton Foundation's usual $200,000 bribe-fee for a full half hour.
I want to see Elizabeth Warren in disguise as a reporter asking a series of questions about Wall Street Banks cronyism for bribe/fees. How does she set that fee?
Re Paper Prinouts of Emails: They should just rent one of those highspeed industrial scanners and OCR the text. It'd probably take some interns like a day to scan 50,000 sheets.
As President, Hillary cannot earn a fee for selling out Israel. Obama has already pocketed that whopper so big AlGore is jealous. That could have been Al's Saudi money.
"I understand the concern about whether all the relevant emails have been furnished to the State Department. So I'm permitting a neutral party to review all the emails on the server and assure that the official emails have been produced. And that neutral party is the esteemed Washington attorney Lanny Davis."
"And the e-mails are not searchable - it's only paper printouts."
The most important fact in the story.
"They should just rent one of those highspeed industrial scanners and OCR the text."
It won't have the metadata and other e-mail information.
The server was needed to serve her
Desperate need to preserve her
Plausible denial of actions most vile
And this woman thinks we deserve her?
First question I'd ask: Can you email me your prep notes for this press conference?
Meanwhile, Bill is holding a boxers presser at the Marriott.
Better Question: How many emails did you withhold from the State Department?
Who, in particular, decided which emails to withhold?
The questions that will probably be asked:
(1) How many Republicans did you see doing this exact same thing before you decided to copy them?
(2) How does this affect your overall Gloriousness?
~~~sEcRReT sErVerS~~~
I will only indulge myself if she holds it in her briefs.
You know it's going to be canned and contrived and that the informational content will be appallingly low.
The issue is not the 55,000 pages of emails she turned over the State, but the emails she chose not to turn over. It's not up to her to determine what is or is not a presumptively public record.
That sort of malfeasance is fairly minor if the government employee is a low-level clerk in the Department of the Interior or something. But a Cabinet official maintaining her own server and giving herself enormous discretion to conceal public records in intolerable. That arrogance or paranoia (or both) is enough to make her unfit for office.
Of course there's the additional problem of maintaining sensitive high-level communications on a server that is presumably much less secure than what the State Department has to offer. How can we trust this woman to do what's right for the country, e.g., protect our national security, when she has demonstrated a clear willingness to do break rules to do what's right for her?
Unless Hillary proves otherwise, I am going to assume the deleted emails kept from the eyes of public information officers are highly incriminating, both for her and for her family's foundation. She simply doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
She has taken time to identify any anticipated questions and to rehearse the answers. She will be cool, calm, collected and professional.
It has been pointed out that she goes into hiding whenever the shit hits the fan. How would she handle something bigger than her bothersome little personal crisis?
Question: When you're President do you plan to abandon all requirements that all agencies reporting to the executive use .gov e-mail addresses? Also will you sign an executive order delaying the prosecution of agencies for ignoring FOIA requests? If not why not.
At 3:00 a.m.?
Will someone please ask if she supports penii in her locker room?
That's penes. Or penises, take your pick.
It won't have the metadata and other e-mail information.
But it'd have the body text, so you could at least do simple string searches much faster than looking through it by hand. Hell, I could write a Perl script in 10 minutes that could parse out relevant words and phrases.
Boxers would be the more appropriate and dignified attire, but briefs are fine. Anything but a thong.
The Quaestor Augury of the Day: Hillary's statement this afternoon will be a rehash of her "vast right-wing conspiracy" comment.
Congress weighs new Royalty
Rules for Internet plays. Says the crawler on Fox News.
For those who lived through the Nixon years (that includes Hillary!, of course), it's all so deliciously familiar. Someone up-thread suggested that Hillary! will offer to have some neutral go through her emails and select the ones to be made public from the rest. Where is Sen. Stennis when you need him? The so-called Stennis Compromise was Nixon's way of trying to wiggle out of producing the tapes, meaning the tapes that Rosemary had not managed to erase.
Stennis was a Dem, although from Nixon's perspective not an unfriendly one. Who would be the Rep equivalent today, nominally from the opposition but someone Hillary! might trust to keep her interests in mind? Perhaps George Schultz (certainly old enough, as Stennis was), or maybe James Baker? Can't think of any currently serving Rep senator who might fit the bill, though.
>>Hillary will, for a time, in answer to any questions, refer back to what she said today.
This won't be the last press conference or statement about this from Hillary.
I disagree. She will discuss it today.
Starting tomorrow, it will be "old news", and those asking about it will be assumed to be cranks, nutjobs, and Fox News Benghazi loonies.
It's the Clinton three step program for scandal management:
1) Deny everything
2) Attack the attackers
3) Change the subject
The President failed to appoint an Inspector General for the time that Hilary was SOS. Anyonewho had a beef with her using a personal email had no one to file a complaint with except the ACTING IG who was a friend of Patrick Kennedy, who of course, was a good friend of Hilary's.
Why would that happen? An agreement between Obama & Hilary? Wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-chained-state-watchdog-while-clinton-sent-emails/article/2561288#.VP8nT2VbOPI.twitter
Does Bill stand by his Wo-Man?
> I disagree. She will discuss it today.
> Starting tomorrow, it will be "old news",
> and those asking about it will be assumed
> to be cranks, nutjobs, and Fox News Benghazi
> loonies.
Close, today will be 'I hear your concerns, but don't worry! I'll get the details to you as soon as I possibly can, but nothing untoward happened'
Then after that, it's "old news & cranks", even though no actual discussion of the topic ever happened.
Oh my. Hillary late for well choreographed event?
madisonfella and garage will be quite put out.
DanTheMan: "It's the Clinton three step program for scandal management:
1) Deny everything
2) Attack the attackers
3) Change the subject"
Similar to our 5 rules for Junior Officer Survival:
1) Deny Everything
2) Admit Nothing
3) Feign Ignorance
4) Counter-Accuse (my personal favorite)
5) When all else fails, drop the dime on your "buddy"
Why doesn't she just do what John Kerry did with his military records. Give them to a friendly reporter at a cheerleading newspaper for a couple of hours, forbidding him to take notes, then claim to have released them.
Rush is pre-empted for the speech by the local radio affiliate.
Fortunately there was time to get to rushlimbaugh.com before the next segment started.
Hillary is speaking now. She's as unlistenable as Obama.
I'm having 90's flashbacks.
The whole purpose of having her own server was to have the ability to "destroy" emails.
I like her hair. Kind of a strange wrinkly look around her cheeks. Now trashing GOP.
Is that when Taranto says "...look, a squirrel!".
The reaction to this has been heartening--even normally left-leaning media outlets are piling on (the Washington Post has been tearing down the lame defenses the Clintonites have tried to put up).
The thing about all this is how completely stupid this was on the Clinton team's part--if the goal was to have a channel in which to send e-mail that could be entirely under her control and out of the public eye, she easily could have quietly set up a personal e-mail account to use in conjunction with her government account. No one would be able to prove just how many e-mails regarding official business were sent on the private account. What makes this so dumb is that she never even used a government account at all!
I mean, if you're going to be a devious liar, at least be good at it. She comes off quite incompetent here.
"And the e-mails are not searchable - it's only paper printouts."
The most important fact in the story.
It is. If they were being open and honest, they would have simply sent over the electronic version which would take an IT type minutes, not hours. Instead, they took those files and created hardcopies that are not only harder to search, but add unnecessary steps to the process.
The Clintons are deplorable.
Wow, she looks old.
I think that the progs have the knives out for her at this point.
Limited Hangout
That stupid fucking grin on her face is annoying.
What is all this nonsense about two devices? Why not just one?
If they were being open and honest...
If they were being open and honest, they'd hand over the server, plus any backup media.
"We've already covered that question, many times. Let's MoveOn.
Hey, snappy name for a coverup site.
Of course they supplied hardcopies. It makes so many things impossible to know, and any questions that arise can be attacked as right wing noise.
The press has their orders, now to make them stick.
Did she really say she chose not to hold onto her personal emails? She deleted them? Jeez, the sheer nerve of it!
Secret devices? LOLOLOL.
Good one guyz
Hillary just refused to answer whether she cleared the server with anyone at State, or even informed anyone about it. She ignored the question and said instead that the server has never been breached.
Someone should ask her, in the tradition of asking Republicans,
"It's been said that some of your Emails were racist in nature, even going so far as to use the N word several different times in several different Emails. Did you release those Emails?"
How does she protect herself from such an accusation?
She should go to jail like Jeffrey Skilling did.
Yes garage, we see you there. You do not have to keep flinging your own feces in order to get attention.
GAB's seeekret prosecutor GMAIL accounts in the John Doe investigation to hide what they were doing from the public and Republican members of the board.
Eh garage?
Any questions about national security implications?
the server has never been breached
Something she cannot know.
We are only asking because she identifies as a woman.
The Turkish guy has it right.
Her defense for much of this is that she sent emails to people with ".gov" addresses. You know, the people who actually followed the rules, unlike her.
When touring high schools with my oldest, I had a preference of schools that had 'issued' chrome books.
Kept personal/social media off the school's severs.
The state department would of gladly issued her any device she needed. That's why we pay taxes.
I think the most important unaswered questions are:
1. What are all the email addresses that have ever existed on that domain and who were they assigned to.
2. Were any others used by any DoS staff?
3. In your role as SoS, weren't you negligent in your obligation to comply with the FOIA law from day 1 of your duties till now?
4. Which of your staff reviewed the emails?
5. What criteria did you give them?
I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device.
I bet that Hillary! indictment is coming any day now.
There. She's answered all of your questions. You will never again be allowed to ask a question about any of these issues.
@Bushman, yes, she claimed she never sent anything classified via email.
"I went above and beyond what I was requested to do... and people will judge for themselves."
Credibility is a nice thing to have and it sucks when you lose it, doesn't it Hillary?
I bet that Hillary! indictment is coming any day now
If it is anything like that Scott Walker indictment you had been promising us, she can rest easy.
Chuck Todd said she hasn't satisfied the OpEd writers.
Rut Roh.
I bet that Hillary! indictment is coming any day now.
Difference is, no one is suggesting something like that is in the works. On the contrary. Hillary will never be prosecuted for this or any other misconduct. She's teflon.
Lots of people used to say Nixon would have been smart to burn the White House tapes. Hillary took that advice to heart. That's exactly what she did for all the emails she chose not to furnish to the Department of State.
Well, we do know one thing.
Every time Bitchtits predicts an indictment, it perpetually will be "any day now."
Fatty is ready for Cankles, at least until he gets his new marching orders from the Libtard websites.
Like I said, I think blood is in the water. There will be primary challengers from the left.
the server has never been breached
Something she cannot know.
Exactly.
The talking head is thinking this won't hurt her now among Democrats. Wishful thinking is my thought.
Chuck Todd said she hasn't satisfied the OpEd writers
Bullshit. Nothing a little nuts in the vice treatment won't smooth over.
It depends on what the meaning of personal is.
Blogger Original Mike said...
I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device.
3/10/15, 2:19 PM
It's a lie and a stupid lie at that. Does she have a separate device for every website she visits?
MadisonMan said...
@Bushman, yes, she claimed she never sent anything classified via email.
what she means of course is that she never sent anything "marked" classified via email.
In my experience almost every utterance by the Sec Def is arguably classified, procurement sensitive, budget sensitive, or personnel sensitive.
rehajm: "Chuck Todd said she hasn't satisfied the OpEd writers.
Rut Roh."
Hardly.
Chuck Todd merely has to return home this evening to receive his next batch of marching orders, which he will happily follow.
She also said many times that the people would get to judge her actions from the State Department's anticipated public disclosure of her emails. What? I don't see how reading the emails she chose to turn over would tell us anything about whether it was appropriate to maintain her own server and private email account, which enabled her to control her disclosures and delete embarrassing or potentially incriminating emails.
As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail?
@OriginalMike
I can access several account on gmail. It is my understanding she used ONE email account. Still my emails aren't that important.
The talking head is thinking this won't hurt her now among Democrats
Probably true, at least not the ones int the cheap seats.
Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”
She has been as transparent as she can.
PMJ: "Like I said, I think blood is in the water. There will be primary challengers from the left."
I'm not so sure.
We've never seen a politician positioned this way prior to entering the dem fray before (and yes, I'm including lefty hero and gal-manslaughtering Teddy Kennedy).
Despite what we see in Chicago right now and the MoveOn noise over noted Cherokee high priestess Warren, there isn't any real serious contender on the left in sight.
"There is not a smidgen of corruption in those emails... as far as I know.." Barack Obama
OK, it is really BHO and HDRC mashed.
rehajm: "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
There never was a guarantee that we could or would.
Human nature. It's a rather persistent thing.
Of course, nobody will ask the $64,000 question: "Why should we believe you?"
@Renee: I understand she only used one email account. The question is why. She said the reason is that she wanted to use only one device, but she can access two accounts from one device.
On a night when bad dreams become a screamer
When they're messin' with the dreamer
I can laugh it in the face
Twist and shout my way out
It's Cloward-Piven all the way down.
And, as expected, we've reached a point in history where it's likely to succeed.
> The reaction to this has been heartening--even
> normally left-leaning media outlets are piling on
> (the Washington Post has been tearing down the
> lame defenses the Clintonites have tried to put up).
Actually, what I think you're seeing is a semi-public proxy fight for the presidential succession rights in 2016. The Obama wing of the media doing their normal tactics against the Clinton wing, so as to set up Obama's preferred successor (though who that might be seems vague at this point) for an easier 'coronation'.
It happens against republicans as well, except in that case they pick the most electable one and tear him/her down so that a poorer candidate makes it to the general election.
Don't confuse this for the media actually doing their job.
I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device.
My thoughts too. The firm that I was in for awhile seemed a bit more security conscious than the State Department was in regards to Hillary! For awhile, we couldn't use iPhones, but instead were limited to Blackberrys, because the iPhones were easily hackable. But, that was ultimately overcome. In any case, I had both personal and firm email accounts on both devices, the Blackberry and the iPhone. It isn't rocket science.
Now, it is quite possible that an employer, etc., may require that no personal email accounts be utilized on the phones that they provide. And, I suspect that this does happen at the highest levels of government - which is possibly why Obama apparently has both a Blackberry and an iPhone. BUT, Hillary never apparently got a state.gov email account, so that the only email accounts that she could have been using as SoS were private.
It would be an interesting thing to know, whom Obama actually has in mind.
HRC did not look very comfortable at the Press Conference. You could tell she was forced to do this.
I hope SNL does a take-off on this soon.
She is reading her prepared answers.
Re: one device, etc, I use one device and have several email accounts, who doesn't?
I make sure my wife does not get the girlfriends email and vis-versa.
Who doesn't?
No need to mix businees and personal emails. Or use more than one device to keep them seperate.
I also liked the lie that the server was secure because the Secret Service was guarding it.
So, if anyone tried to hack into the server, those secret service agents would do ... what, exactly?
Blogger Original Mike: "I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device"
Noted IT "expert", Minnesota resident and 'wannabe consultant to Cuba' garage mahal can explain it all easily.
"So, if anyone tried to hack into the server, those secret service agents would do ... what, exactly?"
Don't be silly. She has people to do that for her.
@Bushman, yes, she claimed she never sent anything classified via email.
Thanks MadMad.
Of course even if she didn't send classified information, every conversation she had with the president or other high cabinet officials has probably already been shared with our enemies. Not a good situation.
PackerBronco: "I also liked the lie that the server was secure because the Secret Service was guarding it.
So, if anyone tried to hack into the server, those secret service agents would do ... what, exactly?"
The Secret Service was there to wrestle to the ground and handcuff any offending electrons.
It's possible that the government agency in question will not allow a personal e-mail account on the government-issued device, but if Clinton knew about that sort of prohibition then she was obviously aware of the "only use official government e-mail accounts for government business" rule as well. It's a lame excuse anyway--government employees often carry a personal device and the agency-issued device. It's annoying, but if low-level employees can hack it, certainly a Cabinet Secretary who has her own staffers following her around can manage it.
The bigger question is why no one else at State or in the Administration caught on to this and nipped this in the bud.
What difference, at this point, does it make? We should all just MoveOn. Anyone still bringing this up must be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and anyway (given Atty Gen Holder) there's no controlling legal authority to punish any infraction.
Yeah, this country definitely needs a Clinton back in the White House, that sounds like a great idea.
I bet that Hillary! indictment is coming any day now.
Why? When your foes are self-inflicting wounds, you just sit back and watch them bleed out.
Clinton leads Walker by 9 in Wisconsin
Doesn't look like Wisconsin cares about secret emails.
And how is it "more convenient" to set up and maintain your own e-mail server rather than using the government servers?
Lies, lies, and more lies. Trusting on the techno-stupidity of the public.
>> What makes this so dumb is that she never even used a government account at all!
Don't assume dumbness with the Clintons:
Possible reasons:
1) Bill Clinton wanted to read every e-mail.
2) She wanted to forward stuff to secret addresses and she couldn't do that from her work e-mail without that being recorded.
2a) She wanted to be able to secretly consult Bill without leaving a trace, and without having to re-type anything.
3) She might by mistake say something incriminating or revealing in an e-mail to an outsider.
4) An outsider might mistakenly e-mail something incriminating to the official address.
OK. Since this is/was apparently a privately-owned, privately-operated mail server (based on her statements), there can't be any question of "executive privilege" for the contents of that server, right, unless the administration takes ownership of the server and its contents, correct?
1. She "opted for convenience."
Having absolute control to delete incriminating evidence is very convenient.
There is no real concession of a mistake.
There is no such thing as a Democrat who learns from his or her mistakes, and there never will be.
Let's see, if the law firm billing documents were found by Hillary's assistance in a library room office that was part of the private White House residence, where do yout think the server hardware will turn un, once several lawsuits have been pending for several years?
Has Hillary Clinton ever, ever, publicly revealed she consulted Bill Clinton about anything work related?
1. She "opted for convenience." 2. "The vast majority of" her work email went to work email addresses and were therefore preserved. 3. She has provided the State Department with all her emails "that could possibly be work related." She seems to be conceding that she has destroyed her personal email. (How are we to know what she shunted into that category.) 4. There's a fourth point, something about wanting things to become public.
I am not sure what convenience she is talking about - her day to day convenience, or the convenience of being able to delete anything that she doesn't want the public to see. It definitely makes deletion of inconvenient emails easy, and esp. when some of her closest aids were also apparently using clintonemail.com accounts (e.g. Mrs. Huma Weiner, etc.)
Not sure how she was able to handle classified material on her smart phones if she wasn't using a state.gov account, without, of course, illegally storing it on her family's private email server. If she didn't have a State dept. account, the only way that she could have seen the classified material was through some non-government email account. She seems to think that no one else out in the country has ever had a smart phone with email, and don't know how this sort of thing works. (Let me add that until I got Drop Box on my iOS devices, the ONLY way that I could get any sort of PDF, DOC, etc. to open on them was via email. Ditto, only more so, for my Blackberry).
A little trip down memory lane!
"I just don't have any memory of that." Hillary Clinton (When that Watkins memo showed up revealing that she had ordered the Travel Office firings.)
"[She] has a different memory." Mike McCurry, referring to Hillary Clinton
"I'm dying to give these notes up. I never wanted to keep these notes." Bill Clinton (after claiming executive privilege on White Water documents)
"The Administration has organized the second White House Conference on Character Building next month to do nothing for two days but talk about how to build character. President Clinton won't be there ...." Al Kamen in the Washington Post
"And I know there is a collective sigh of relief when people like me leave." Hillary Clinton
"I'm a big believer in tipping. We should support working people." Hillary Clinton – who did not pay for her meal nor leave a tip for waitress Trish Trupo, a single mother who earns $2.90 an hour before tips.
"I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America." Hillary Clinton, in response to criticisms that her nationalized health care plan might bankrupt small business owners.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Hillary Clinton, 1993
"No, I did not remember that profit." Hillary Clinton ($4300 in one-day trades)
"I do not remember any of those details." Hillary Clinton (when asked to explain the $4300)
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the--if he--if "is" means is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." Bill Clinton, Grand jury testimony, August 17, 1998
"I want to say one thing to the American People. I want you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false." Bill Clinton, television interview January 26, 1998
"Indeed I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong" Bill Clinton
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign." Bill Clinton
"The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." Hillary Clinton
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not." Hillary R. Clinton, 1992.
"Sometimes I read about myself and I say, 'Ooo, I don't like her at all.'" Hillary Clinton
"The stories come and go, and I stay the same." Hillary Clinton
"Impeachment does not have to be for criminal offenses, but only for a 'course of conduct' that, while not particularly criminal, might be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress." Hillary Rodham 1974
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." Hillary Clinton
"There has never been an intentional effort to do that, and I think that we are in full compliance. I believe we are. That's what [White House Chief of Staff John] Podesta told me right before we came out." Bill Clinton, regarding the Clinton Administration's failure to turn over 100,000 subpoenaed email messages concerning "Filegate," Monica Lewinsky, and Chinese and other campaign finance abuses.
"The White House listed the messages as 'classified' documents to delay the probe into 2001 - after Mr. Clinton leaves office." Sheryl L. Hall, former White House manager of computer operations at the Clinton White House in the matter of 100,000 subpoenaed emails the Clinton White House failed to turn over to investigators
"In fact, a White House official told one of the contractors they had a jail cell with his name on it if he discussed the matter." Sheryl L. Hall, referring to contractors from Northrup Grumman Corp, tasked with managing the WH email servers, in the matter of 100,000 subpoenaed emails the Clinton White House failed to turn over to investigators
"We may not want to call attention to the [missing subpoenaed e-mails] issue by bringing the issue to the attention of Congress because ... the level of requests appears to be declining...Let sleeping dogs lie." Karl H. Heissner of the White House Office of Administration in a February 1999 memo.
"I know a search was being done" by "one or more members of my staff," Ruff swore under oath. "If I knew who that was I would tell you who that was. But I do not recall." Charles Ruff during questioning before a congressional committee investigating missing White House e-mails.
"I'd say, 'Gee, I just don't remember what happened back then', and they won't be able to indict me for perjury and that, maybe, that's the principal thing that I've learned in four years...I just intend to rely on that failure of memory." former Clinton White House counsel Charles Ruff, in a June 19, 1997 Washington Post story by Bob Woodward.
"Why should we believe you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?" Bill Bradley, Jan. 26, 2000
"Actually, what I think you're seeing is a semi-public proxy fight for the presidential succession rights in 2016. The Obama wing of the media doing their normal tactics against the Clinton wing, so as to set up Obama's preferred successor (though who that might be seems vague at this point) for an easier 'coronation'.
It happens against republicans as well, except in that case they pick the most electable one and tear him/her down so that a poorer candidate makes it to the general election.
Don't confuse this for the media actually doing their job."
I'm not heartened because I think journalistic excellence is winning the day here--I'm heartened because it's a sign that Hillary may have pushed this one too far. This is a scandal that can't be easily brushed off.
As I've noted before, the Left isn't all that enamored with the Clintons--the populists don't trust their Wall Street ties, the moderates retch at their general sliminess, and various interest groups have been thrown under the bus by them (anti-war left, gay left). Most of her power is due to the sense that she's all they have against the GOP, but that support is fragile--the minute they sense she could be beaten just watch.
Does anyone remember those billing records, by the way? They were paper copies and that's all that was available, since the computer on which the file was stored was destroyed. The records were the subject of a Federal investigation, weren't produced, and then magically appeared. I wonder if anyone ever faced legal consequences over how those records were handled (withheld). Probably not. Kinda reminds one of a similar brouhaha with the IRS, something about lost emails, I dunno.
*Matthew McConaughey voice* Time is a flat circle...
garage mahal: "Clinton leads Walker by 9 in Wisconsin
Doesn't look like Wisconsin cares about secret emails"
Clinton Leads Obama by 18 in Dec, 2007
Looks like the US simply isn't ready for a first term Senator from Illinois.
You cannot beat Hillary with deleted emails. And she deleted them. Now what you gonna do?
You have to elect this Rat to learn where she hides undeleted stuff.
Saying the emails belong to the American people is not gonna do anything to Hillary either. She's one of the American people and she reviewed them for us and since they were personal, they are gone.
Why would she have to have two DEVICES? You can have two different email addresses on one device - people do that all the time. i always get the sense the higher up people are, the less they understand about how technology works. They just delegate and use general terms and hope for the best.
I saw Bill O'Reilly discussing GoDaddy with another pundit after the Superbowl commercial flap - neither had ANY IDEA what they did. It was another perfect example of this.
"Your questions have been answered with a level of transparency that exceeds the high standard set by the Barack Obama administration. The crown is displeased with these further inquiries. It would be best for you to move on to new and more appropriate topics."
There's a good chance that she would get caught if she deleted State Dept. related emails as there would be a record of those emails sent to other government employees.
Are secret emails bad?
Hillary Clinton just said she would have needed two phones, one for government email and another one for her private account. She is LYING!
Years ago before I retired, I was the I.T. guy for an organization with a large network and when Blackberries were brought in, I set up multiple email accounts on the individual Blackberries as needed. There's NO way her tech staff didn't know this.
http://t.co/IEqWdS0WDu
"Why would she have to have two DEVICES?"
A lot of government agencies won't allow employees to use government issued equipment for personal use (how well that's enforced I don't know). Out of all of Clinton's excuses, that one has a grain of truth. But other government employees (who don't have staffers attending to them to carry their bags everywhere) seem to be able to cope with carrying two devices, so as an excuse it doesn't hold up.
garage mahal: "Are secret emails bad?"
If those emails are part of your official duties as an officer of the federal gov't.
At least, that's what obama says.
BTW, if you use the default email account that comes with the Blackberry device, those emails go through servers in Canada.
The fact that she, 2 years after leaving office had her staff PRINT out 55,000 sheets of paper to submit to the State Department. Any lawyer will tell you that is the preferred technique to delay and obfuscate.
In any case, it seems she did use two devices.
http://goo.gl/oZHflM
"Are secret emails bad?"
Garage, your "tu quoque" arguments aside, let's say official government communications kept secret and unaccountable and unreachable by FOIA or investigations by Congress or DOJ are a bad thing--you certainly haven't argued otherwise. It is depressing that your only argument about this is "some Republican did approximately the same thing!" You seem oddly at peace with the idea of unaccountable high government officials. It's attitudes like that that create corruption and abuse.
It is depressing that your only argument about this is "some Republican did approximately the same thing!"
It just seems strange that conservatives, who have defended Walker for FOUR YEARS over secret emails, now are suddenly concerned about secret emails.
Now I know conservatives have unyielding principles. I just can't figure how secret emails went from a running joke to a dead serious matter overnight.
Don't have time to read all of the posts, so this may have been said before. Any email server is a glorified database. "Deleting" email doesn't delete the email, it just removes the location of the files from the index of the DB. Eventually the data may be over written, but at least one email solution I know just keeps making the DB bigger and bigger until the admin tells the software to optimize the DB. Even then...forensic file recovery could get the emails.
Federal laws have been broken in many different states and counties. Why isn't the FBI crashing down her door to confiscate the server.
Yeah, yeah...I know why. Her highness doesn't have to obey the law.
Everyone I work with carries two devices.
Government smart phone.
Personal smart phone.
We get our government Email on the government smart phone.
Everything else we get on our personal smart phone.
Why are you even bothering Brando?
Garage, and everyone on the left, moves seamlessly from their false accusations against Walker to their defense of admitted actions taken by Clinton.
It's reminiscent of the lefties right around June 22, 1941 who seamlessly moved from "It's Europe's War, Not Ours!" to "Second Front Now!!".
Another day, another example, ad infinitum, of Fen's Law.
"It just seems strange that conservatives, who have defended Walker for FOUR YEARS over secret emails, now are suddenly concerned about secret emails.
Now I know conservatives have unyielding principles. I just can't figure how secret emails went from a running joke to a dead serious matter overnight."
Okay, let's say for a minute that conservatives are being total hypocrites here--it wouldn't be the first time and it's certainly nothing that conservatives have a monopoly over. But you're still left with a Democratic party that is basically stepping aside to coronate this woman who very obviously broke the law and made a mockery of it, both in letter and spirit.
Conservatives are obviously going to attack her--they'll attack her over anything. But if the principle of government accountability means anything, it will be up to non-conservatives to call her out on this. Particularly since I'd bet this isn't the last scandal she'll have unearthed between now and November 2016.
The Republicans have time to determine whether Walker should be their nominee, and if they nominate him and he turns out to be a crook then that's on them. Why should Democrats part the waters for this woman?
Re "glorified database". True enough. However, any Exchange Server Admin worth his salt knows how to immediately and permanently delete any email. I know, I've done it when asked by the proper authorities in my organization. With distributed database configuration, it would be hard even for the NSA to recover those deleted emails.
It is funny too that garage doesn't give a flying fuck over the secret gmail account that the John Doe prosecutors set up in violation of the law, since they were doing the good fight of attacking Walker.
Garage is a full blown hypocrite on this himself.
Oh Ann, where is the BS tag. This definitely deserves one.
I am astounded that the majority of the female electorate is expected to vote for this lady. I have a lot more respect for women's smarts than to think they are going to fall for this act.
This is some brazen lying. I'm impressed with Andrea Mitchell's question.
Palin received much harsher treatment regarding her email issues, so it is nice to see people trying to hold Clinton to a standard.
"However, any Exchange Server Admin worth his salt knows how to immediately and permanently delete any email."
The only thing left to do with Hillary's deleted emails is to go through the pockets for loose change.
"Oh Ann, where is the BS tag. This definitely deserves one."
And is it too soon for a "Hillary is like Nixon" tag?
Garage is a full blown hypocrite on this himself.
Nope. Ive said here that I think there should be an investigation into Hillary's emails, and she should be prosecuted if she broke any laws. It was unethical for Hillary to establish a separate email network.
It's easy to denounce things if you arent a partisan hack like ya'll are.
"I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device."
-- Some devices are secure devices that are registered and tracked by government agencies [a very simple example is a blackberry device that a mid-range government civilian might get to receive work emails/calls at home on.].
That Hillary deleted "personal" emails in huge numbers suggests concealment, in my opinion. Hey, why not delete 'em all and include some "official" emails too?
I wonder how many "official" emails there once were on her personal server that only included Hillary and her inner circle using clintonemail.com addresses (Huma, Bill, etc). Ditto for emails to foreign officials and/or private "power brokers" like foreign government lobbyist Lanny Davis.
...but writing a letter (on US Senate letterhead, no less) to a foreign country to intentionally undermine the US President?
it be cool, brah!
#47traitors
This "traitor" nonsense is stupid.
Co-equal branches of government. The President needs to learn to be a federal team player and NOT jump out in front of Congress.
" to intentionally undermine the US President?"
What a mind reader ! So, providing a lesson on America law is "treason," lefty ?
"I don't understand this "two device" argument. I access three different email accounts from one device."
The two device question is actually pertinent to the whole issue. DOD and DOS use separate networks to store and transmit classified and unclassified information. The unclassified network is called NIPRNet, the classified network SIPRNet. SIPR is closed off from the world wide web, it's an internal government network which is why access to the network is from a separate device. If you have a security clearance and access to SIPR, you will literally have two separate computers on your desk, one NIPR and one SIPR. The same with handheld wireless devices.
Keep in mind the email addresses are not just for sending email. They are also used to show when you are logging on to a government computer. A "state.gov" email address would access NIPR. To access SIPR, the address would end in "state.sgov". Hillary would need the SIPR email address to log on to secure devices not only to send classified information by email but also access classified information on State Department secure servers. For example, Bradley Manning didn't hack government computers. As an intel analyst he had a security clearance giving him access to SIPRNet. This gave him access to the share drives of both DOD and DOS where he could copy classified files and download them onto thumb drives. The only way for Hillary to receive classified information at a "clintonemail.com" address would be for someone to download the files, transfer them to a non-secure network and then attach the file to a non-secure email. That's not an easy process because even the thumb drives to be used have separate designations of NIPR and SIPR. It also requires clearing and vetting by the appropriate authorities before the transfer. So if Hillary never had a government email address, then she never accessed classified information the entire time she was SECSTATE. Highly unlikely.
Did no one in the administration notice that she wasn't using a .gov email address? She sent emails, people replied, and no one ever noticed it was a private account?
Hillary has been in trouble ever since Obama's faction sabotaged her presidential campaign in 2008. I suppose she though she would find sanctuary next to her enemy, but has instead been sacrificed in a public roast. Pro-choice has consequences.
So, writing a letter foreign govts which regurgitate US law is undermining a President, per machine!
So now in the age of obama we aren't allowed to reprint and promulgate the laws of the US.
Fantastic.
Of course, teddy kennedy offering directly to work with Soviet leaders to undermine Reagan in a US election and the baghdad 3 heading over to Iraq on saddams dime?
Totally cool.
Again, turning reality upside down is SOP for the left.
Up next for machine: reciting US law is racist.
"So if Hillary never had a government email address, then she never accessed classified information the entire time she was SECSTATE. Highly unlikely."
-- She never accessed it ELECTRONICALLY. It is POSSIBLE that she simply had a standing order that her staff was to send all SIPR documents to a staff member who would print to a SIPR printer and provide classified documents in hard copy to her.
Nope. Ive said here that I think there should be an investigation into Hillary's emails, and she should be prosecuted if she broke any laws. It was unethical for Hillary to establish a separate email network.
It's easy to denounce things if you arent a partisan hack like ya'll are.
I agree with Garage.
There should be an investigation, just like there was an investigation of Walker.
The only way for Hillary to receive classified information at a "clintonemail.com" address would be for someone to download the files, transfer them to a non-secure network and then attach the file to a non-secure email.
You might consider how the human brain acts as a storage device, and information stored therein can easily cross between secure and insecure systems.
Here answers were basically "trust me". Then she got on her broom and flew away. The Wicked Witch of the West is small potatoes compared to Hillary.
Anthony Weiner might still be in office if he had two devices.
Mac said... The only way for Hillary to receive classified information at a "clintonemail.com" address would be for someone to download the files, transfer them to a non-secure network and then attach the file to a non-secure email.
To be clear, what you mean is that your method is the only way that she could receive material "Marked" as "Classified" was what you said.
However, I would argue that everything the SoS 'sends' is at least FOUO, and most likely should be classified by the originator as 'Secret'
She "opted for convenience."
How is setting up your own server more convenient, even if it was for Bill's stuff? Didn't she ever wonder wonder kind of cluster#ck it would be if something happened to the server? How is it more secure than government servers? Who from the government helped put this together? Did everyone (anyone) else at State know you were doing this? Convenient for what, exactly--reading emails in your pajamas or a convenient way to retain control over information?
It is likely she broke th same lasw that Petraus did. Therefore, Obama may have to pardon her so she can run for office. How crazy would that be?
Good old Hillary. Pure Clinton through and through!
Stonewall, lie, delay, fudge, cheat, steal, swindle, etc... They know no bounds!
I am sure they are the envy of the Obamas.
The senate writing letters to Iran is quite legal.
Pelosi talked to Assad, remember, and Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern went to Cuba.
Go look at what the State Department said about that (lets just say they said members of Congress are exempt.)
Sorry Charley, what goes around, comes around.
If Obama is gonna act like a ass, then Congress will do what they can to keep in from doing any harm.
shorter answer - Hillary! is just a crook. She has been demonstrating this for 40+ years. As the scorpion said, " It's my nature".
So it is illegal to inform a foreign government of the contents and meaning of our constitution?
Ha ha ha! I guess it is top secret now.
There's a reason Presidents need congressional approval for treaties. Obama is trying to make one by executive order. It is worthless the day he leaves office. The Iranians ought to know that. They probably think he is the same kind of dictator they are and that Obama thinks he is.
Republicans write a letter telling Iran that things could change if they gain power.
Um, thanks morons! I'm sure Iran had no idea.
Maybe the Iranians could ask Snowden for a copy of our Constitution.
Um, thanks morons! I'm sure Iran had no idea
Get your talking points right, they are traitors!
BIG LIE:
Hillary Clinton: Third, after I left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them.
This is a BIG LIE, although strictly speaking every word is the truth.
The State Department people were arguing with Hillary Clinton's people for some time. Apparently one argument they sued is why is she being singled out.
So the State Department asked every secreatry of State since MAdeleine Albroight (1997-2001) for any emails they had retained. None supplied any, becauyse none had any. If she supplied email right away, she must have been ready for that.
They were negotiating for some months, from at least August through November, and then she supplied a printed out document of 55,000 pages.
Now Hillary Clinton is saying "30,000 you know, work emails"
Earlier I had heard 80,000.
.
"I have a lot more respect for women's smarts than to think they are going to fall for this act."
They fell for Obama ...
Iran's Foreign Minister fired back saying that while he may not know American law, they don't know internaitonal law, and under international law, the president speaks for the country.
This is not exactly true, or otherwise Salt II would have been binding.
Hillary Clinton's answer about possibly sending classified matters:
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
It didn't have a chance to get classified I guess.
Question: What about Ambassador Scott who was forced
to resign two years ago because of his personal use of emails?
Hillary Clinton:
David, I think you should go online and read the entire I.G. report. That is not an accurate representation of what happened.
under international law, the president speaks for the country
Who knew that international law mad the US a dictatorship. It does figure though.
Sounds like the "morons" are in Tehran, eh garage?
"Um, thanks morons! I'm sure Iran had no idea."
They knew to the minute when Reagan took power.
Dope.
Question: Why did you wait two months?
Hillary Clinton never answers that point, but she did say earlier in her introductory statement:
I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related
Clearly the reporter thinks that "right away" is a lie.
It's like somebody is resisting a request and negotiatesd wording and then responds "right away."
Hillary Clionton is giving the date of the request as late summer, or early fall (like as if she doesn't know precisely, but she wants to make reporters and columnists work, you know and maybe not get or have answers by deadline)
And she adds:
..the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state, not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related emails that might be on the personal email.
And what I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work.
They did that, and that was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it, and then I took the unprecedented step of saying, "Go ahead and release them, and let people see them."
Unprecedented yes. Nobody else had any emails and besides which, it's an empty gesture.
Much of it would be kept secret for many years by the government.
And this is only what she sent over.
And responded only means answered the letetr, anyway, right?
QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account?
And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn't?
Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.
CLINTON: We did not. In fact, my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related.
That doesn't mean they will be by the State Department once the State Department goes through them, but out of an abundance of caution and care, you know, we wanted to send that message unequivocally.
She's saying the State Department may reject some.
Now she's evading the question, except to say that they overcomplied.
But no third party had a look at any of that.
Another question:
QUESTION: How could the public be assured that when you deleted emails that were personal in nature, that you didn't also delete emails that were professional, but possibly unflattering?
And what do you think about this Republican idea of having an independent third party come in an examine your emails?
CLINTON: Well first of all, you have to ask that question to every single federal employee, because the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision.
So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. That is the way our system works. And so we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions.
And I feel that I did that and even more, that I went above and beyond what I was requested to do. And again, those will be out in the public domain, and people will be able to judge for themselves. It's true enough people are making their own judgements. That is maybe a problem. But they are making their judgements contemporaneously.
And there's no way to tell if anything was omitted. Although they probably have all that went to state.gov addresses.
Any forwarding of e-mail would of course mot be supplied.
Also: from Hillary Clinton:
At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails - emails about planning Chelsea's¯s wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.
So they're gone from the server.
And they weren't going to be made public. Maybe seen by a stranger, but not made public.
And we're concerned about other possible e-mail than things that personal.
Garage: "I'm sure Iran had no idea."
Garage defending the intelligence and honor of a islamic radical regime.
I. Did. Not. See. That. Coming.
Understandable though. No Iranian leaders are named Walker.
"I feel that I've take[n] unprecedented steps."
No disagreement on that point.
All of this info coming out now about emails, foreign donations in the billions to the clintons, bill hanging with his pedophile pals, etc.
And lo and behold Hillary! Hasnt officially announced yet.
What a fortuitous bit of timing! Just think, in a few weeks or months all of these issues will be treated by the Hillary! media as "old news" and "asked and answered" and "conspiracy fodder". Its so transparent as to be laughable but its guaranteed anyone who brings up any of this will immediately misogynistic.
Guaranteed.
Oh, and lefties like garage claiming that they think Hillary should be investigated are being utterly disengenuous. Garage and the rest of the "Grubers" are only saying that because they know there is zero chance any federal agency will investigate this and if an investigation is launched it will follow that familiar pattern: no news forever then strangely abbreviated public whitewash report.
Again, transparent.
So just when did Hillary delete her "private" emails from the server? Was she deleting "private" emails as she went along, or all at once? If the former, who reviewed what was in the "private" category? Ditto for the latter. Were there any established criteria for how these determinations were made? Since this was Bill's server too, what control did he have over its contents? Is it possible that emails could have been deleted without her knowing? Just who had access and control of the server, and when? Were there ever any attempts to hack or invade the server? What were the results of those attempts?
Etc? Etc? Etc?
Any audio of reporters planning on how to "get" Hillary like they did to Romney in 2012?
As for the "brief" press conference, how long can Hillary keep up this self-annointed, above-the-crowd, my time is in such great demand facade, meanwhile interest and enthusiasm in her candidacy erodes?
"Any audio of reporters planning on how to 'get' Hillary like they did to Romney in 2012?"
Wasn't Ezra Klein recently in Madison? He should know this one.
First the Repub frontrunner,Chris Christie, self destructed.
And now the Dem shoe-in, Hildabeast, self destructs.
Truth is a lot stranger than fiction.
garage mahal said...
"Republicans write a letter telling Iran that things could change if they gain power. Um, thanks morons! I'm sure Iran had no idea."
Not just morons but traitors, right?
Under the Logan Act, those Republican senators should be fined or imprisoned not more than three years, or both, right?
Sometimes I think Hillary wouldn't be so bad, then crap like this comes up and it knocks the sense back into me. Rush should do a parody of Hillary singing the Johnny Cash song I walk the line, because that's what the Clintons always do, not quite illegal, not quite legal, but always something in between.
...actually they knew before reagan "took" power.
there is a history there...a proud history.
David said on 3/10/15, @ 5:59 PM CDT:
So just when did Hillary delete her "private" emails from the server?
Like she said: at the end
She had to be sort of truthful about that, because some people know it.
Not just her people. Kerry's people, who got some more e-mails after they weren't satisfied the first time and maybe the second time and maybe a third time.
That means really, late 2014, after the printouts had been turned over to State but before the Gowdy committee was informed.
Was she deleting "private" emails as she went along, or all at once?
All at once, at the end
Well, she might have been deleting some other super-sensitive stuff as she went along.
If the former, who reviewed what was in the "private" category? Ditto for the latter.
Who do you think reviewed it??
If you listened carefully, and she was hoping you didn't, that would be Bill and Hillary Clinton's lawyers, and their lawyers' employees, who can't be asked any questions about it because they are protected by attorney client privilege.
Were there any established criteria for how these determinations were made?
They made them up, and changed the criteria a few times until the State Department proposed no more changes. It was like a subpoena, except it wasn't a subpoena.
Since this was Bill's server too, what control did he have over its contents?
He had control up to the limits of his technical knowledge. He probably didn't have too much knowledge, but the SYSOP worked for him.
Is it possible that emails could have been deleted without her knowing?
Hey, you just thought up a good legal defense for Hillary!
Just who had access and control of the server, and when?
If Congress is really interested, maybe they can get the answer, or at least an answer that the Clintons will agree on.
Were there ever any attempts to hack or invade the server?
Who knows, but they probably failed.
What were the results of those attempts?
Does anyone know the names of any of Bill Clintons girlfriends since 1998? There's your answer.
Etc? Etc? Etc?
Of course we really want to know what they are hiding.
what might be missing.
She left State two years ago. At that time she should have returned all government property that was at her residence including of course the emails. Instead she thought it okay to keep then until State asked for them.
Doesn't seem to be much focus on that issue. As a private citizen she had no right to possess emails regarding government activity even if she had sent or received the email while a government employee.
'Blogger Mary Beth said...
Did no one in the administration notice that she wasn't using a .gov email address? She sent emails, people replied, and no one ever noticed it was a private account?" Some anonymous source- IT guy- said he warned her people several times that this was ill advised, but they just shrugged. I'm sure he didn't go to the queen - she probably wouldn't let staff look her in the eye.
But others may have assumed that she was copying her emails to a secure government server, as required.
steve uhr said...
She left State two years ago. At that time she should have returned all government property that was at her residence including of course the emails. Instead she thought it okay to keep then until State asked for them...
3/10/15, 7:07 PM
This is a woman who stole furniture, silverware, paintings, china and more from the White House. I get the impression that the concept of "not her property" doesn't really register with her.
For these things I watch the reaction from the left leaning parts of the media--when Hillary loses them, she shows actual damage (Limbaugh or National Review ripping on her is to be expected). The reaction after this speech seems to be "nice try, but no cigar" so chalk this one up as a serious wound. Whether she can heal, or if this is a sign of continuing doom (I'm sure more scandals will emerge--we have a year and a half to go!) remains to be seen.
If her team can't handle this sort of mess (and their pathetic response suggests they can't) then she ought to do the smart thing and decline to run. No need to end your career by losing a second unlosable presidential race.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा