Althouse: I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm deleting your email.

March 11, 2015

I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm deleting your email.

It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a computer in the White House, and it’s got mail. Who do you want answering that email?

63 comments:

garage mahal said...: Some highly racist emails were found in Hillary's secret emails, from her Chief of Staff

Oh dear, Hillary's in Trouble!; 3/11/15, 8:58 AM
LYNNDH said...: Where are all the hackers when you need them.; 3/11/15, 9:07 AM
Meade said...: Slick [Hillary].; 3/11/15, 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: It was a good ad at the time; 3/11/15, 9:18 AM
Gahrie said...: It's a joke son, I say a joke.

Lighten up Francis.; 3/11/15, 9:21 AM
Franklin said...: Storing classified email on her home server is, by defintion, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor.

She is at best a criminal.; 3/11/15, 9:36 AM
FleetUSA said...: It didn't work then and she hasn't improved since; 3/11/15, 9:58 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Its 3pm and your children are watching and learning. But there's a press conference in the White House and they're asking questions. Who do want answering those questions?; 3/11/15, 10:07 AM
Simon said...: Politico summed-up Hillary's message to the media in three words: "Go to hell." And the undertone of the article was a sense of butthurt, that they feel a little pricked.

And I've got to tell ya, I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary on that. If she had posted a video on her public facebook page speaking directly to America and had explicitly told the MSM to go fuck itself, well, that's how Sarah rolls, right?

Conceding the media's relevance by calling a press conference isn't how Sarah rolls, but if she did, I'm sure that she too would evince a sense of "[s]ure, I’m happy to answer some questions—and ... I don’t give a damn if you don’t like my answers."

It's not the least-likable thing about Hillary that she is suspicious of the MSM's motives.; 3/11/15, 10:22 AM
F said...: Simon: Huh?; 3/11/15, 10:26 AM
Francisco D said...: Give it up Garage. I checked out your link.

You are pathetic.; 3/11/15, 10:42 AM
Hagar said...: The Sarahcuda did not become a billionaire while serving as government official(s).; 3/11/15, 10:42 AM
garage mahal said...: Give it up Garage. I checked out your link

And?; 3/11/15, 10:45 AM
Drago said...: Simon: "If she had posted a video on her public facebook page speaking directly to America and had explicitly told the MSM to go fuck itself, well, that's how Sarah rolls, right?"

I'm not sure your Hillary!(yesterday)=Sarah because your initial conditions are wildly varying.; 3/11/15, 10:47 AM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: "Hillary telling the media to 'go to hell' is kinda badass."

--media lickspittle; 3/11/15, 10:47 AM
Drago said...: Hagar: "The Sarahcuda did not become a billionaire while serving as government official(s)."

Now now. I'm sure Algeria coughed up tens of millions to the Clinton funds simply because the Algerian gov't wants to "help".

Let's face it: nothing says "altruism" like islamic government.; 3/11/15, 10:56 AM
Brando said...: "Give it up Garage. I checked out your link

And?"

And I've decided that if Scott Walker had a staffer who sent a racist e-mail, then Hillary definitely didn't do anything wrong and should be our next president.; 3/11/15, 11:11 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Fatty is showing his devotion to how "Ready for Cankles" he is.

Until Kos or TPM tells him that it is time to be ready for Squaw Who Speak with Forked Tongue.

Hilary can't save your precious forced union dues, tubby.

You have a super day, sport.; 3/11/15, 11:20 AM
JAORE said...: It's 3 am and a phone is ringing in the White House. But we'll never know what the call was about because Hillary let it go to voice mail and then hit delete.; 3/11/15, 11:29 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Its 3 AM at the State Dept and the Clinton Foundation cash register is still ringing. Cha-ching! Cha-ching!; 3/11/15, 11:41 AM
gregwithtwogs said...: Many years ago, I was issued a Blackberry by my company. I understood that even though we used a secured company email server, all Blackberry emails go through a Blackberry email server in Canada which I assume is an unsecured (in a security clearance sense) server. Does anyone know if that is true? And if it is, wouldn't any of her State Department emails sent from and to her Blackberry to her home email address through the Canadian Blackberry server have security issues?; 3/11/15, 11:42 AM
damikesc said...: Politico summed-up Hillary's message to the media in three words: "Go to hell." And the undertone of the article was a sense of butthurt, that they feel a little pricked.

And I've got to tell ya, I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary on that. If she had posted a video on her public facebook page speaking directly to America and had explicitly told the MSM to go fuck itself, well, that's how Sarah rolls, right?

Conceding the media's relevance by calling a press conference isn't how Sarah rolls, but if she did, I'm sure that she too would evince a sense of "[s]ure, I’m happy to answer some questions—and ... I don’t give a damn if you don’t like my answers."

It's not the least-likable thing about Hillary that she is suspicious of the MSM's motives.

...except the press is quite supportive of her. What Republican could get away with disappeaaring for months on end?

Keep in mind, emails involving the Clinton Foundation, rest assured, were amongst the ones destroyed.; 3/11/15, 11:47 AM
UNTRIBALIST said...: Canada server for Blackberry emails? Not necessarily. Only the default Blackberry device email MUST go to Research in Motion's servers in Canada. If configured correctly, other emails need not go through Canada.; 3/11/15, 11:54 AM
Drago said...: "The Most Transparent Administration In History."

A theme which followed a wonderful trajectory from the Clinton "Most Ethical Administration In History".

Gee, it's almost like the lefties label their administration "themes" the polar opposite of what they actually do.; 3/11/15, 11:59 AM
Curious George said...: "Simon said...
And I've got to tell ya, I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary on that. If she had posted a video on her public facebook page speaking directly to America and had explicitly told the MSM to go fuck itself, well, that's how Sarah rolls, right?

Conceding the media's relevance by calling a press conference isn't how Sarah rolls, but if she did, I'm sure that she too would evince a sense of "[s]ure, I’m happy to answer some questions—and ... I don’t give a damn if you don’t like my answers."

It's not the least-likable thing about Hillary that she is suspicious of the MSM's motives."

This is a bullshit apples and oranges argument. Sarah Palin wasn't the Dec-State, and is not running for POTUS.; 3/11/15, 12:02 PM
Bob Boyd said...: I'm not generally sympathetic to Hillary regarding this email business, but if she deleted any emails from Anthony Wiener, I'd give her a pass on that.
Just sayin'.; 3/11/15, 12:06 PM
Sam L. said...: "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a computer in the White House, and it’s got mail. Who do you want answering that email?" THAT is one GREAT line!; 3/11/15, 12:11 PM
Drago said...: I'm still waiting for garage to offer up his "Anthony Weiner twitter-hack" defense that it's all the fault of those rat/chicken/pig-f*****s at Breitbart who did it all.; 3/11/15, 12:19 PM
garage mahal said...: Curious George is very concerned with elected leaders using off-governmental email systems. Really, he is!; 3/11/15, 12:34 PM
damikesc said...: This is a bullshit apples and oranges argument. Sarah Palin wasn't the Dec-State, and is not running for POTUS.

Palin also didn't delete thousands of emails with the line of "trust me, these were personal"; 3/11/15, 12:42 PM
damikesc said...: Curious George is very concerned with elected leaders using off-governmental email systems. Really, he is!

I'm sure he's more serious than you are.

See, Walker was investigated.

Hillary cannot be since she ERASED a shit ton of emails and owns the server --- correction: She HOUSES it. We paid for it and paid for its security.; 3/11/15, 12:43 PM
Scott said...: Slick Hillary. Good one Meade.

If Hillary were a man, the backbiting in her 3 a.m. ad remake wouldn't look good on him. It doesn't even look good on gay men, although quite a few do it.

But Hillary is a woman; and unless the GOP decides to run a woman against her (and it won't), Hillary will win the election. No man has a chance against her, period.

It's the estrogen factor. Women vote about 5% more often than men, and a plurality of women who never before voted will vote for Hillary just to be part of the "historic" election of the first woman president. (People do vote for stupid reasons like that. Ask Ann Althouse about voting for Obama.)

Face it, we're stuck with barely competent progressive Democrats in the White House until at least 2025.; 3/11/15, 12:57 PM
Scott said...: Hillary Clinton is Frank Underwood.; 3/11/15, 1:01 PM
Scott said...: With tits.; 3/11/15, 1:02 PM
MadisonMan said...: No man has a chance against her, period

I won't do it.; 3/11/15, 1:07 PM
Simon said...: Drago said...
"I'm not sure your Hillary!(yesterday)=Sarah"

It's not a perfect analogy, and I actually like both women (I know which I'd rather hunt with, and which I'd rather have dinner with), but I like feisty women, and I like politicians who aren't afraid to openly disdain the self-styled "fourth estate." In some ways it's even better when a Democrat does it, because as someone pointed out above, the media hates Republicans already, so you're really not risking anything as a Republican to express open contempt for the media.

Hagar said...
"The Sarahcuda did not become a billionaire while serving as government official(s)."

That's right, she prematurely resigned from her government position before mining her fame for money. My friend Mike is apt to say, and I think he's exactly right, that on November 5, 2008, Sarah Palin had a choice: She could either serve out her term (maybe even win a second), building on her already-impressive resume, hit the books, build a team, give meaningful speeches, develop an agenda, and really become a serious force to be reckoned with in 2012 or 2016, or she could make a shit-ton of money. And I'm really offended--I won't go so far as Matt Lewis, but you've got to keep in mind, I was an early Palin supporter--that she took the money.; 3/11/15, 1:24 PM
Simon said...: Scott said...
"But Hillary is a woman; and unless the GOP decides to run a woman against her (and it won't), Hillary will win the election. No man has a chance against her, period."

Ehh. That remains to be seen. There's an opening for Fiorina to be amazing, to blow everyone away; I don't think it'll happen, but it could. And Hillary could completely blow it; I don't think it'll happen, but it could. Or maybe, you know, you get a real wildcard, like, Kasich grabs the nomination and brings in Condi Rice as veep or something. Or, as I've suggested before, we could nominate Rand Paul, who, unlike anyone else who may run could conceivably capture the zeitgeist. These aren't the things that keep me awake at night; what worries me is the rapid intellectual rot of the Republican Party and the corresponding contempt with which conservatism is held by an ever-growing part of the electorate. It's a cancer, and maybe we limp through for a while, but in the end we either deal with it or we die. We once sold America on conservative ideals; people like WFB, Clinton Rossiter, Russell Kirk, Dean Smith, Stanton Evans, even (later on) Irving Kristol: These were serious guys, they had a serious philosophy, they convinced the electorate, and we started winning elections. Nowadays, what a ramshackle mess their heirs have made of it.; 3/11/15, 1:33 PM
Simon said...: You know, then we had WFB; now we have Mark Levin. And who the fuck is Mark Levin? He's no William F. Buckley, quite frankly. I'm so sick and tired of the tone and the vacuous content of discussions on the right these days, and the empty tribalism. When you get called a RINO reflexively for pointing out that a story critical of Obama is incorrect in its facts, not its critical appraisal or reasoning but its facts, something's very wrong. We're at risk of becoming the stupid party again. But anyway, I digress.; 3/11/15, 1:37 PM
Todd said...: Simon said... [hush][hide comment]
Politico summed-up Hillary's message to the media in three words: "Go to hell." And the undertone of the article was a sense of butthurt, that they feel a little pricked.

And I've got to tell ya, I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary on that. If she had posted a video on her public facebook page speaking directly to America and had explicitly told the MSM to go fuck itself, well, that's how Sarah rolls, right?

Conceding the media's relevance by calling a press conference isn't how Sarah rolls, but if she did, I'm sure that she too would evince a sense of "[s]ure, I’m happy to answer some questions—and ... I don’t give a damn if you don’t like my answers."

It's not the least-likable thing about Hillary that she is suspicious of the MSM's motives.
3/11/15, 10:22 AM

Yeah but isn't that like Al Capone being suspicious of the FBI? Sure he had reasons to be suspicious but it wasn't like he didn't earn the investigations...; 3/11/15, 1:50 PM
Scott said...: @Simon: I hear you. (I interned with Stan Evans in the late 1970s.); 3/11/15, 1:53 PM
Drago said...: Simon: "In some ways it's even better when a Democrat does it, because as someone pointed out above, the media hates Republicans already, so you're really not risking anything as a Republican to express open contempt for the media."

Hardly

Hillary knows perfectly well the 4th estate will coalesce effortlessly around her just as soon as she locks up the nomination.

To pretend otherwise is naivete on stilts.

Simon: " Sarah Palin had a choice: She could either serve out her term (maybe even win a second), building on her already-impressive resume, hit the books, build a team, give meaningful speeches, develop an agenda, and really become a serious force to be reckoned with in 2012 or 2016, or she could make a shit-ton of money. And I'm really offended--I won't go so far as Matt Lewis, but you've got to keep in mind, I was an early Palin supporter--that she took the money."

Your refusal to list the fact that the Palins were being frivolously sued into financial ruin due to the bizarre gap in the Alaska statutes (since rectified of course) tells us alot about how much "thought" you given this.; 3/11/15, 1:59 PM
damikesc said...: These aren't the things that keep me awake at night; what worries me is the rapid intellectual rot of the Republican Party and the corresponding contempt with which conservatism is held by an ever-growing part of the electorate.

Republicans have always been "stupid". Nothing will change that.

And the "increasing amount of the electorate who loathes the party" has it at its strongest point in a century.

I'm not sure success is what you think it is.; 3/11/15, 2:01 PM
Drago said...: Simon: "We're at risk of becoming the stupid party again"

Again?

When did we stop?; 3/11/15, 2:03 PM
Simon said...: Drago said...
"Your refusal to list the fact that the Palins were being frivolously sued into financial ruin due to the bizarre gap in the Alaska statutes (since rectified of course) tells us alot about how much 'thought' you given this."

That's immaterial to my conclusion. The Sarah Palin that beclowned herself in Iowa a few months ago is a pale shadow of the Alaskan governor of whom I was an early supporter in 2008. A very pale shadow. I don't know whether that means that she changed (as I think) or whether her subsequent superficiality impeaches our original assessment of her (as Matt thinks), but she is the poster-child for the crass, brainless, epistemic closure that bedevils the party today.; 3/11/15, 2:13 PM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"Republicans have always been 'stupid.' Nothing will change that."

Drago said...
"Again? When did we stop?"

When I became a Republican, we were the party of the men listed above, of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan, of Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Frank Easterbrook, and the Federalist Society, of Steve Forbes and Alan Greenspan, of John Bolton and Richard Perle. We were the party that put an immigrant at the lecturn of our national convention in 2004 to tell a relatively new immigrant from Britain who was trying to rethink his politics to fit into America that:

"If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican! [And if y]ou have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people, and faith in the U.S. economy [then you are a Republican!]"

We were not stupid then. We were not what we have become. And I don't know when we lost our way, but when I joined the Republican Party, we were not the party of George W. Bush, Rand Paul, and Trey Gowdy, we were not a party where every time one learned that one of our officeholders had said something about the female body you falcepalmed out of habit.; 3/11/15, 2:24 PM
Brando said...: "Republicans have always been "stupid". Nothing will change that."

It was certainly less so a couple decades ago--even with some corrupt characters (e.g., Nixon) and buffoons (e.g., Gingrich) it was still the party that had intellectual growth and had capacity to govern and get things done. These days it seems more like a contest to prove how "pure" you are, with events such as "show how much you hate Obama" and "do more symbolic stuff that turns off potential supporters or makes your own cause worse".

Case in point--the debt ceiling votes. Anyone who understands what that vote really is knows that due to an arcane law, a vote to raise the debt ceiling is the equivalent of Congress voting to pay bills on purchases it already made, rather than voting to make more purchases. Grandstanding by voting against it may look good to those who don't understand this (and yes, Democrats, including Obama, are guilty of this stunt when Bush was in office) but if they actually voted down the increase it wouldn't reduce our spending but very well might hurt our credit rating (by telling bondholders that they might not get paid) and cost us more in interest payments. Maybe some could justify this in a "got to destroy our finances to make people finally realize we have to spend less" sort of way, but those would not be smart people.

What would a smart party do? Maybe propose actual cuts when making the next budget, and find ways to make them palatable enough that you can get the votes you need. Screaming into the heavens won't work.; 3/11/15, 2:36 PM
PackerBronco said...: Wait a second: Clinton said that she deleted the personal e-mails from the server:

"At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’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."

That being the case, she has no reason not to turn over the server since, according to her statement, what's left on the server is not personal e-mails.; 3/11/15, 2:45 PM
damikesc said...: How is Trey Gowdy"dumb"? He is one of the smarter guys in politics period. Great prosecutor who only says what he knows and not more than that.

And Brandi, every conservative has been called dumb. Sorry if you missed that but it's been a constant refrain.; 3/11/15, 3:31 PM
SH said...: Franklin said...

"Storing classified email on her home server is, by defintion, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor."

Yeah; but removal with the intent of concealing is a felony....; 3/11/15, 3:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Republicans have always been "stupid". Nothing will change that."

I think especially when they took the country to war to end slavery, passed the amendments formalizing that, and passed the Civil Rights laws over the resistance of such notable Democrats as AlGore, Sr., Fulbright, Byrd, etc.; 3/11/15, 3:46 PM
damikesc said...: That's immaterial to my conclusion. The Sarah Palin that beclowned herself in Iowa a few months ago is a pale shadow of the Alaskan governor of whom I was an early supporter in 2008. A very pale shadow. I don't know whether that means that she changed (as I think) or whether her subsequent superficiality impeaches our original assessment of her (as Matt thinks), but she is the poster-child for the crass, brainless, epistemic closure that bedevils the party today.

You misspelled "all of politics" there.

Unless you are hoping to argue that the Dems aren't crass, brainless, and infested with epistemic closure...; 3/11/15, 3:46 PM
damikesc said...: I think especially when they took the country to war to end slavery, passed the amendments formalizing that, and passed the Civil Rights laws over the resistance of such notable Democrats as AlGore, Sr., Fulbright, Byrd, etc.

Bruce, since you like others are missing the point, can you name a single time when the Republican candidate for President was argued as being smarter than the Dem?

You cannot because it never happened.

Ike was just an amiable dunce.

Nixon was a crook who wasn't too bright.

Ditto Goldwater.

Ford? Moron clearly.

Reagan? Rube.

Bush Sr? Out of touch rube?

Dole? How can anybody smart talk like he does?

Bush Jr? Ditto.

McCain? Clearly an imbecile.

Romney? Way less smart than Obama.

Hey, I'll give you a sneak preview: No matter who they run in 2016, Hillary will be "smarter" than they are. Rest assured. In spite of he ample evidence of Hillary being a bit of a dullard, she will be "brilliant" in all coverage.

Because to the press covering it, if they don't agree with your views, it's because you're evil OR retarded.; 3/11/15, 3:50 PM
Mark said...: I'm surprised that I'm the first to comment that the child's pajamas in that commercial are racist.

Signed,

#LongTimeReaderOfProfessorAlthouse; 3/11/15, 4:02 PM
kcom said...: The ever-sleazy, self-serving, rules-are-for-someone-else politician from Chicago via Arkansas isn't the best choice? Is that what you're saying?

The Clintons - cornering the sleaze market since the 1980s.; 3/11/15, 4:10 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Bruce, since you like others are missing the point, can you name a single time when the Republican candidate for President was argued as being smarter than the Dem?

Agreed. A lot of it is the narrative. The insanity is that the type of book learning that is so esteemed by the left is part of why their politicians are so bad. Of course, we have no idea of Obama's grades, and are pretty sure that at least Romney had much better grades. And, both AlGore and Kerry did about as badly in college as did GW Bush.

Actually, if you stop and consider the Presidential candidates on the left in our lifetimes, none of them was really that bright, except maybe Bill Clinton. Above average, yes. Genius, probably not. Which brings us back to the narrative, which says that Dem candidates are always smarter than their Republican opponents, except that in reality, they wouldn't believe a lot of the stuff they said, if they were half as smart as they are supposed to be.; 3/11/15, 6:53 PM
Michael said...: damikesc

Hillary is so dumb she does not know that you can have more, many more, than two email accounts on one "devise."

America would love to hire a woman as president but not a dumb old bag. She cannot win.; 3/11/15, 7:26 PM
holdfast said...: Brandi is so smart it thinks that calling the bank to get another raise in your credit card limit (and then paying the monthly minimum forever) equals paying one's bills.

Damn that's some big smarts.; 3/11/15, 11:26 PM
damikesc said...: Actually, if you stop and consider the Presidential candidates on the left in our lifetimes, none of them was really that bright, except maybe Bill Clinton. Above average, yes. Genius, probably not. Which brings us back to the narrative, which says that Dem candidates are always smarter than their Republican opponents, except that in reality, they wouldn't believe a lot of the stuff they said, if they were half as smart as they are supposed to be.

Indeed. And for Republicans to worry about nominating "smart" candidates is an utter waste of time. Bush was smarter than Gore. Comfortably so. Smarter than Kerry too.

I've not seen the brilliance of the Dems. Bill was smart, but Obama hasn't shown anything resembling legitimate intellect. Hillary has not either. Gore and Kerry surely did not.; 3/12/15, 8:53 AM
sonicfrog said...: Linsay Graham's would be:

"When that 3 AM phone call comes, America deserves a president who preferres the telegraph!!!"; 3/12/15, 10:06 AM
sonicfrog said...: A good friend of mine wrote:

""When that 3 AM phone call comes, America deserves a president who won't waste time figuring out which one of her phones is ringing."; 3/12/15, 10:08 AM
sonicfrog said...: Joe Biden:

"A 3 AM phone call is a big f****n' deal! And I won't sleep through it because it'll come on a big f****n' teletype that clacks-clacks-clacks like an angry duck! That machine has balls, I tell you!""; 3/12/15, 10:14 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: >> can you name a single time when the Republican candidate for President was argued as being smarter than the Dem?

1928 maybe. Al Smith had hardly any education while Herbert Hoover was a college graduate and a mining engineer.

http://www.lawlessdecade.net/28-31.htm

. In addition Smith was accused of being a habitual drunkard, an illiterate, a rough, crude, uncouth tobacco-spitting bully of the East Side, a flunky of the corrupt Tammany of the Tweed days, an ignoramus who would disgrace the White House and make the United States the laughing-stock of foreign ambassadors."; 3/12/15, 12:37 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Probably 1948 also.

You could also maybe argue that when George McGovern was accused f being wrong on many things, hat amounted to an accusation he was stupid. Of course then maybe you could add 1980 to 1972.

And maybe you could also add 1988. Since Dukakis was so stupid in the tank, and with his answer to the rape question, and with not agreeing that furloughs from jail for murderers were bad, the ACLU comment

Andrew Jackson was also argued as being stupid, but that was before the Republican Party.; 3/12/15, 12:43 PM