Also on the show to defend Hillary was Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress. Like Davis, she let the stress show and it undercut her arguments (especially as Kimberley Strassel, sitting right next to her, kept giving her the stink eye and undercutting her with quick surgical strikes):
WALLACE: [T]he rules were pretty clear, your e-mails should be preserved.... You think that's with keeping of the spirit if you don't turn these over while you're secretary of state, you don't turn them over when you leave as secretary of state? You don't turn them over until two years after you leave, and it's only after the State Department lawyers confront you?Strassel ruled that exchange.
TANDEN: OK, that's also faster than any previous secretary of state passed over the e-mails... So, I'm saying that now we'll be able to see, turned over, taking the act of actually turning over the e-mails to the public. I think let's, you know, I know it's hard to imagine, but let's take a breath, she what are in those e-mails and then decide.
STRASSEL: Well, the e-mails she's chosen to give to the State Department.
TANDEN: Well, just to be clear about this. If a cabinet secretary today was using private and public e-mail, right, and the other cabinet secretary, they're making the decision when they decide to use public e-mail, right? So, that's the decision they're making. There's no private -- there's no public record of their private e-mail.
STRASSEL: Which is exactly why the Obama administration said use your government e-mail –
TANDEN: Where appropriate –
STRASSEL: -- because these e-mails belong to the public. They don't belong to them.
TANDEN: Exactly. And she's turning them over. So, that's what we'll see.
STRASSEL: The ones she chose to turn in.
Wallace then turned to George Will and asks him "How big a deal is this?"
GEORGE WILL: It's big because it is axiomatic that the worst political scandals are those that reinforce a pre-existing negative perception... The Clintons come trailing clouds of entitlement and concealment, and legalistic, Jesuitical reasoning, the kind of people who could find a loophole in a stop sign. The -- her obvious motive was to conceal. You conceal in order to control. And that's what makes this literally, strictly speaking, Orwellian. In George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", Oceania's regime, the totalitarian regime had an axiom, "He who controls the past controls the future. And he who controls the present controls the past." This is a way of controlling what we will know about the history of our country and it is deeply sinister.Tanden attempts damage control and it's quite painful (though funny):
TANDEN: Orwell, sinister, I mean, why don't we ask her, instead of attacking and deriding. See the e-mail and then make judgment.See how Tanden is unwittingly making the argument against Clinton? It's quite obvious at this point that Clinton has reserved for herself the power to determine which of the mixed public and private emails will be called public and handed over. What's to stop her from putting anything she doesn't want us to see in the private category? Benghazi... bridesmaids... what's the difference? Wallace drives this home:
STRASSEL: Why do you think she did it?
WALLACE: But don't you agree that there's a problem –
TANDEN: This is unbelievable to me, Orwellian. We can all use these words –
WALLACE: -- when the e-mails we're going to see, these 55,000 pages, are only what she and her lawyers decided to turn over.
TANDEN: Again, they're the public e-mails. She has e-mails I'm sure about the bridesmaids dresses. Do we have a right to see those e-mails? She has friends like me that said, how is my sister doing? Do we have the right to see those?
WALLACE: No, but I'm saying to you that she sat there -- what if there's an e-mail about Benghazi and she gets –
TANDEN: And that's what the lawyers will see those, exactly.
WALLACE: Not if she didn't turn them over.
TANDEN: The State Department going to see those e-mails and any e-mail on Benghazi to a public e-mail, other people had documentation as well.
STRASSEL: So, you're saying the State Department is going to see her server?
TANDEN: No, I'm saying that –
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: What do you think bout the idea of allowing an independent person to go in as you heard Lanny Davis talk about to see her server?
TANDEN: So, I would just see what the e-mails we have are and make decisions on that. We have two years into a presidential cycle, why don't we actually get these e-mails out in the public and see if there's a -- we will have more public e-mails. We'll have more e-mails public than any secretaries of state in the history –
STRASSEL: Possibly none that actually matter?
TANDEN: No, not possibly none that actually matter.
WALLACE: Let me bring Juan in-- Juan.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I must say first of all, Hillary Clinton seems to me to be very entitled and privileged and she broke the rules. So, I don't think there are any questions. As to whether or not she broke the law, that's not clear.
WALLACE: I agree.
WILLIAMS: But I will say this, in terms of the politics of 2016, which is really what I think we're driving at here, is that Hillary Clinton scares Republicans to death. I think that's what we've seen. Initially Democrats, including the Obama White House this week, did not defend Hillary Clinton, because the Obama White House wanted to make it clear they had set a clear rules of the road for Hillary Clinton, and they backed off. There was radio silence. I was over there this week. Radio silence on this. But by the end of the week, with all of this talk of subpoenas on Benghazi, and then all of the stuff about, doesn't this remind you of how technical and Orwellian the Clintons are -- suddenly, the Democrats, and we see this with Neera this morning, have become more defensive. And I think the idea is, you know what? Republicans are feasting, they are in a frenzy. They think this is Watergate redux, and it's not.
WALLACE: OK. But you know sometimes when you feast, it's Thanksgiving.
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
Is the "Hillary's in trouble" tag left over from 2008, by any chance?
The only reason this might not seriously hurt Hillary is if people don't really understand what she did wrong. This is not much different than Nixon agreeing to only hand over half his White House tapes when requested.
Progressivism is built on the premise that its necessary to lie when necessary.
The problem is, the more you lie the more it becomes necessary to lie.
Soon you get to the point where the facts don't matter, only the narrative matters.
Clearly many Progressives have already reached that point and have embraced it.
But don't worry. They mean well. How could it not work out well?
Ron Fournier says "anybody with a brain" says this is a scandal on CNN this morning. And he likes the Clintons and admits it is because of them that he is where he is today.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/ron-fournier-clinton-email-controversy-a-scandal-for-anybody-with-a-brain-video/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/emails-may-be-a-key-to-addressing-pay-to-play-whispers-at-clinton-foundation-20150308
All one has to do to know what a Hillary Clinton Administration will look like is to observe the loathsome Lanny Davis.
I'm amazed that HRC won't defend herself. Also that she can't find coherent spokesmen to run out to the Sunday shows.
Even Bill wouldn't do it.
Is James Carville on vacation?
I would especially like to see the e-mails relating to the State of Norway donating "between 5 and 10 million dollars" for that double-wide in Little Rock - all of the e-mails!
... the kind of people who could find a loophole in a stop sign.
What a perfect summary of the Clintons!
I guess I need to look at the transcript to see whether Chris Wallace thought to bring up the cyber security issue. I'll bet he didn't, but to me the callous attitude towards securing the official documents of the Secretary of State is utterly disqualifying.
There is no way this can be defended as it seems to me the Daily Intelligence Briefing given to every president first thing in the morning would have had a standing comment: "Sec of State Clinton is still not using govt secured email for her communications".
If it didn't and the president did not know, then what are we spending $50 Billion [approximate annual spending on CIA, NSA et] a year on.
"They systematically falsify reality as a matter of keeping faith with their political delusions. They’re in their final days—a vanguard elite with a secret agenda who stopped being a popular movement a long time ago and have survived for half a century by lying to the people. Like all liars, they live in a panic because they know they may be discovered at any moment." - Charles McCarry, Shelley's Heart
Tks Prof
This is a perfect example of why your work on this blog is so valuable to us.
This was where Lanny lost me:
"WALLACE: If Clinton did nothing wrong, why did she send out a memo, why did she send out a memo in 2011 to all State Department posts with this directive, avoid conducting official department business from your personal e-mail accounts. Why was it so important for every other member of the State Department, but it was a directive that she ignored?
DAVIS: I can explain that by saying that a secretary of state traveling to 111 countries might be needing to have one e-mail system versus people in the department who should use the official system.
A question a member of the press should ask the President:
You say that you just found out about Sec. Clinton's private emails while at State. Did you never send or receive an email to your Secretary of State in four years?
Not a lot of people realize this whole thing came to light because of the Deflategate investigation.
NFL officials reviewing security camera footage observed Hillary Clinton carrying what appeared to be a server into a toilet in the Patriots locker room and coming out again approximately 90 seconds later.
Will the Hillary hounding change if we are told that the Obama WH chose to leak this this week to avert Netanyahu disaster? That they knew it since Aug 2014 and that it was not illegal before 2014 and the law was changed in 2014 and that there may be other cabinet secretaries who did it? Republicans and Benghazi select committee knew about this since 2014 and they didn't say anything. I think the defenders got frustrated because they all knew that the WH leaked this.
The transcript cannot show the derision in the sing song put down in Tanden's voice making out that Will is a certified Crazy man for using the word Orwellian. After all this is Doris Day movie here.
Mean while, smoke signal signs are seen and war drums are heard along the Charles River.
Prof.
Here is the video supplement your fine analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wobMmAZ87l4
"Hillary Clinton scares Republicans to death. "
And not just Republican politicians. She scares a lot of people to death.
The Clinton hack on FNS was very aggressive in her defense. I did not watch Lanny Davis who can be reasonable on other topics.
They are the most effective argument against ever hiring someone from Arkansas I've ever seen.
Lanny Davis is also a paid defender of our nitwit attorney general here in Pennsy. The AG has been indicted for leaking secret grand jury testimony.
Eh. I think most of the news media will largely ignore it, and what attention they pay to it will be of the standard CYA sort, of letting the Clintons and their surrogates put their memes out there ("She turned them all over, it's no big deal"; "Other people have done it, it's no big deal"; etc.) and paint it as a Republicans-trying-to-make-a-scandal thing.
IIRC, in the Clinton years Lanny Davis was working on getting an oil pipeline through the Caucasus.
Trey Gowdy says that in the 55,000 e-mails Mrs. Clinton has turned in, there are month long gaps when she apparently did not send or receive e-mails.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
Rush Limbaugh: "I hope everybody who is up in arms about this, about Hillary breaking the law by hiding her email -- by the way, Judge Napolitano, the real-life Eddie Munster last night on The Kelly File on the Fox News Channel said this could be a felony. This could very likely be a felony, what she's done here. And if it is, do you know what that means? She is disqualified from holding any further political office, if she is found guilty of having committed a felony."
How many people died and how many foreign relations setbacks did we suffer because she didn’t follow the law?
FOR A SECRETARY of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
(not a partisan source)
"Trey Gowdy says that in the 55,000 e-mails Mrs. Clinton has turned in, there are month long gaps when she apparently did not send or receive e-mails."
Check out the new post, based on Gowdy's Face the Nation interview. That struck me too.
Come to think of it, the donations for the double-wide, which stood at $495,000,000 last time I saw it reported, came before her tenure as Secretary of State, and so would not be subject to these FOIAs, but then it was recently reported that the Clinton Foundation(s?) has collection another 2 billion since, and I want to know if any of that came from the Norwegian government or any of its agencies, such as Statoil, and if so, exactly what the circumstances of such gifts were.
-----That they knew it since Aug 2014 and that it was not illegal before 2014 and the law was changed in 2014 and that there may be other cabinet secretaries who did it?-----
Surely you don’t want to be posting falsehoods...
Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0
My apologies for the repost - but imagine the average citizen doing a "compare and contrast" with another cabinet officer, Gen. Petraeus, and asking "how does this work again?"
I wonder if she'll get same plea bargain deal as General Petraeus. Be interesting to compare the degree of compromise. Madame Secretary uses a guaranteed-to-have-been subverted server to not only inform the Russians and Chinese about U.S. secrets, but provide them a vehicle to blackmail her during the most sensitive of negotiations. The other has indiscrete pillow talk in the manner of a man who is thinking from regions not-above-his-shoulders - with not-an-agent of a foreign government who when a military officer was cleared for top secret information.
The only way to keep from being blackmailed is to simply publish it all, every single message that ever lived on or was backed up off of that server. Then there can be no fear of future disclosure. Will await the proverbial cold day. Or perhaps we should ask Mr. Putin for his copy. Or the Guangzhou high school junior who regularly lifted copies in her alternate Thursdays how-to-hack-US-servers computer lab.
At minimum she sent classified information on a non secure server. That's jail time if done on purpose for the rest of us.
"Like all liars, they live in a panic because they know they may be discovered at any moment."
No. Psychopathic liars do not panic. Liberal psychopathic liars only panic when liberals turn on them.
"I think the defenders got frustrated because they all knew that the WH leaked this."
No doubt. But Hillary! will take their frustration as long as long as she can conceal her email.
The initial set up-was intended to protect her both against FOIA requests and against Barry's thugs.
Considering the elaborate steps needed to make this work, she and her people, including Bill, must have considered the consequences and calculated the risks very carefully. She thought she could roll with the punches that would come and that the Dems would have to rally for lack of a viable alternative. It's not clear yet that she miscalculated.
"Hillary Clinton scares Republicans to death. "
The notion that this individual is still not removed by acclimation from consideration for the presidency should frighten to near-death anyone not completely blinded by partisanship.
The Clinton Way is to stonewall completely, never give an inch on anything. They'll shoot for public fatigue abetted by hoped-for media indifference.
Hillary only wants to be held to the same rigid standards that Russia gives Putin.
I am Laslo.
This was good:
Davis: "Last time I looked you cannot delete on a hard drive."
@Achilles, don't fall into that trap. She probably didn't send or receive classified data on her domain. But if the Secretary of State is not sending and receiving extremely sensitive data of intelligence value, then what in the heck was she doing for four years? Sending sensitive data on poorly secured communications lines using a server that is not physically secured inside a security boundary may or may not be illegal -- I'll let the lawyers argue that one -- but in this era of cyber espionage it's unbelievably stupid.
Deleted data can be recovered, but that gets difficult if you write over the deleted data several times, which is what I think programs that promise to permanently erase data do. I think you can do that by alternately using two or more different defraggers.
And a server has a number of harddrives on it, and I think you can send "sensitive" data to a certain one of them that can be readily removed and disposed of if the need arises.
Yeah the chance of getting your hands on the actual server and the hard drive(s) which contain the data is zero.
In the early days of the Lewinsky affair, each Clinton defender said day after day that the accusations were untrue. Then came the blue dress, and nearly all were never heard from again. Into that excuse-generating void stepped Lanny who could becloud with the best. Seventeen years later pushing 70, the loyal workhorse ain't what he used to be.
But, it probably won't matter. What potential Hillary voters are watching Fox News Sunday? If this scandal ends Hillary's campaign, it won't be her loyalists who take her out.
In WWII, the United States did not break the Japanese naval codes at the first of the war.
What they did break was the DIPLOMATIC codes. Seems the Japanese navy actually sent alot of their traffic through the less secure 'state department' ciphers.
So who knows what jucy State Department info Hillary sent through her much easier to hack private email server.
Brando said...
The only reason this might not seriously hurt Hillary is if people don't really understand what she did wrong.
This has worked for her before.
It seems that EVERYONE in obamas cabinet used private email accounts and fake names, the unusual twist is having your own server.
nice touch.
It is a great question to ask. Would young Hillary - the one who investigated Nixon in the 1970s - stand for this kind of corrupt behavior?. No way. Hillary has become Nixon. Under her own guidelines, she should be destroyed.
The story about Hillary's "foundation" taking donations from arab states which oppress women's rights is pretty interesting.
And the constant refrain that "Petraeus used personal email as SOS too" is a complete strawman that I rarely see getting called on. Petraeus may have used personal email for SOME correspondence but Hillary! used private email for ALL correspondence! All, every one for 4 years! How can anyone compare the two? Also, this "she wants the emails released to the public", yeah, the ONES they chose to turn over, sure, why not? They have already been scrubbed. Why do you think it took two years to turn anything over? Takes awhile to read through off of that.
Todd: . Why do you think it took two years to turn anything over? Takes awhile to read through off of that.
It actually took somewhat less than two years.
The State Department only started asking for them around August,2014, after the Goudy committee noticed that some e-mail they received has been sent from an @clintonemail address
They must have spent time negotiating and they probably didn't receive everything they did receive at once. John Kerry said something that seems to indicate they got it in more than one batch. He said something to the effect of "we think" "we now have"
In the end they probably supplied only emails the State Department should have had copies of, and maybe a few others.
In the process of the negotiations, the State Department asked several former Secretaries of State for any emails they had. This was probably something asked for by the Clinton people to make it look this was not targeted at her. Nobody had any. Colin Powell said Sunday he hadn't printed out thousands of pages and filed it somewhere with his papers.
I think his comment reflects a misunderstanding of what Hillary Clinton had. The reason Hillary Clinton turned over printouts was to make them hard to turn over to a third party (although actually easier to read through) She could have turned over a computer file.
And what with the statement that there were 55,000 pages and 80,000 emails, it seems like many of these emails were very short, saying something like "call me" or "meet me" And it's likely that the way she supplied them, emails started and stopped in the middle of a page.
Her lawyers and/or aides extracted emails, and maybe did this several separate times and then out it all into one big file and printed it out, with no attempt made to separate different emails for filing or turnover.
And also maybe a lot of metadata was omitted.
Todd: . Why do you think it took two years to turn anything over? Takes awhile to read through off of that.
It actually took somewhat less than two years.
The State Department only started asking for them around August,2014, after the Goudy committee noticed that some e-mail they received has been sent from an @clintonemail address
They must have spent time negotiating and they probably didn't receive everything they did receive at once. John Kerry said something that seems to indicate they got it in more than one batch. He said something to the effect of "we think" "we now have"
In the end they probably supplied only emails the State Department should have had copies of, and maybe a few others.
In the process of the negotiations, the State Department asked several former Secretaries of State for any emails they had. This was probably something asked for by the Clinton people to make it look this was not targeted at her. Nobody had any. Colin Powell said Sunday he hadn't printed out thousands of pages and filed it somewhere with his papers.
I think his comment reflects a misunderstanding of what Hillary Clinton had. The reason Hillary Clinton turned over printouts was to make them hard to turn over to a third party (although actually easier to read through) She could have turned over a computer file.
And what with the statement that there were 55,000 pages and 80,000 emails, it seems like many of these emails were very short, saying something like "call me" or "meet me" And it's likely that the way she supplied them, emails started and stopped in the middle of a page.
Her lawyers and/or aides extracted emails, and maybe did this several separate times and then out it all into one big file and printed it out, with no attempt made to separate different emails for filing or turnover.
And also maybe a lot of metadata was omitted.
Todd: . Why do you think it took two years to turn anything over? Takes awhile to read through off of that.
It actually took somewhat less than two years.
The State Department only started asking for them around August,2014, after the Goudy committee noticed that some e-mail they received has been sent from an @clintonemail address
They must have spent time negotiating and they probably didn't receive everything they did receive at once. John Kerry said something that seems to indicate they got it in more than one batch. He said something to the effect of "we think" "we now have"
In the end they probably supplied only emails the State Department should have had copies of, and maybe a few others.
In the process of the negotiations, the State Department asked several former Secretaries of State for any emails they had. This was probably something asked for by the Clinton people to make it look this was not targeted at her. Nobody had any. Colin Powell said Sunday he hadn't printed out thousands of pages and filed it somewhere with his papers.
I think his comment reflects a misunderstanding of what Hillary Clinton had. The reason Hillary Clinton turned over printouts was to make them hard to turn over to a third party (although actually easier to read through) She could have turned over a computer file.
And what with the statement that there were 55,000 pages and 80,000 emails, it seems like many of these emails were very short, saying something like "call me" or "meet me" And it's likely that the way she supplied them, emails started and stopped in the middle of a page.
Her lawyers and/or aides extracted emails, and maybe did this several separate times and then out it all into one big file and printed it out, with no attempt made to separate different emails for filing or turnover.
And also maybe a lot of metadata was omitted.
Sammy Finkelman said...
It actually took somewhat less than two years.
The point is that it should have taken ZERO time as the emails SHOULD have been on a government issued account! Her ass should be in jail right now. Could you just imagine the shitstorm if she had an "R" after her name instead of a "D"? The fact that there are people arguing with a straight face that this is a non-issue just shows how far America has fallen. No government employee should conduct government business on non-government systems. That is not that hard to get unless you don't want to get it. Everyone knows she did this a) cause she is Hillary! and b) to hide as much as possible from FOIA requests.
Those that were in regular email communications with her, if they are government employees, should be fired as they all also know this was wrong and said nothing while it was going on.
Is James Carville on vacation?
He made an appearance, foaming at the mouth.
We are in full Clinton Cover Your Ass Mode now.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा