49 thoughts on “Hillary’s Emails”

1. As he notes, if the White House is really unhappy about this, they have a Justice Department to look into that.”

   Same with the IRS.

   1. It could happen if the White House decides they don’t want Hillary! to be the candidate*. From what I’ve read, there’s no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons. What better way to stick a knife into your opponents than to open a criminal investigation into them, preferably late enough in the game that there’s no chance for them to recover.

      *I have no idea who the White House would want as their preferred candidate. Even they have to realize that Biden is an idiot. Bernie Sanders doesn’t seem like a winning candidate and neither does that former Maryland governor. Elizabeth Warren has said she isn’t running but if Hillary! gets shived then she might change her mind. The one possible candidate that makes my blood run cold is Michelle Obama. Any criticism of her would be both racist and sexist – double threat!

      1. I suspect that the Democrats in the White House are like Democrats in general: we have serious misgivings about Hillary Clinton, but we want a Democrat in the White House in 2017, and she’s the party’s best shot.

         I don’t think you need to worry about Michelle Obama — she’s shown zero interest in being a candidate for anything.

         1. The Democrats in the White House are indeed like Democrats in general: Completely indifferent to lies, corruption, or the rule of law.

            1. It’s mildly surprising that the Democrats in general don’t call out this sort of lawlessness, if only because the next administration, which is looking increasingly likely to be a Republican one, will have some truly scary precedents. Not just with Clinton, of course, but abuse of power seems to ratchet in only one direction.

            2. Completely indifferent to lies, corruption, or the rule of law.

               I seem to recall Democrats expressing concerns over lies, corruption and the rule of law … when the GOP had the White House. There were even complaints about non-government email systems and adherence to the Federal Records Act. Republicans and their supporters, on the other hand, weren’t troubled by such charges; they dismissed them as mere partisan political fodder.

               And so the wheel goes round and round.

            3. Hillary (and the IRS) have taken it to a whole new level. Quantity has a quality all its own.

               The legal term for what she has done is spoliation.

         2. Perhaps, but Michelle has grown accustomed to a very lavish lifestyle at the taxpayers’ expense, such as her most recent vacation that’s costing over $600,000.

            The fact that a low-life scum like Hillary! is the Democrats’ most winnable candidate says a lot about the state of the party.

            1. No, Michelle Obama isn’t going to run for president in order to hold on to a lavish lifestyle. The lecture circuit and corporate boards are much, much easier ways for someone in her position to enjoy a life of luxury. One way or another I expect her to be as comfortable post-White House as Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan were before her.

               I find the fascination with the Michelle Obama’s lifestyle rather ugly. Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I don’t recall Democrats complaining much about the expenses run up by Republican First Ladies.

               says a lot about the state of the party.

               It really doesn’t. If Hillary wasn’t running there would be a lot more qualified Democrats in the race. But as much as you and many others may hate Hillary, she’s a very strong candidate, and that has kept most other contenders at bay. If there was an equivalently strong GOP candidate that field would be smaller too.

            2. “Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I don’t recall Democrats complaining much about the expenses run up by Republican First Ladies.”

               That’s because they didn’t run up huge expensive vacations (for example) like the Current Occupant does.

            3. That’s because they didn’t run up huge expensive vacations (for example) like the Current Occupant does.

               What have Michelle Obama’s vacations cost, compared to Laura Bush’s?

            4. Laura Bush’s vacations were usually at the family ranch in Texas. She didn’t get her own separate airplane, or have a massive retinue. I’d bet it’s at least an order of magnitude difference.

            5. I’d bet it’s at least an order of magnitude difference.

               I’d like to see actual numbers, rather than a gut feeling.

            6. A quick google turned up this from 2013:

               Michelle Obama has already travelled 72 days abroad up to this point. Certainly not an insignificant total, and her first term tally of 55 days abroad is more than President Reagan spent abroad in his first term.

               Yet, Michelle’s two-term travel record will almost assuredly fail to keep pace with Laura Bush’s record-setting feat.

               The former First Lady racked up a two-term total of 212 days abroad. Her second term included 135 days of international travel, which is more time than her husband, George W. Bush, spent abroad during the same time period!

               In fact, if you compare Laura Bush to the Presidents, she is currently the third most internationally traveled of that group, behind Bill Clinton and her husband – though President Obama will likely push her back to fourth in a few years.

               I, too, had no recollection of Laura Bush as a world traveler, but clearly she wasn’t just visiting the Crawford ranch. Which is why it’d be nice to put actual numbers on this suggestion that Michelle Obama is costing taxpayers a lot more than her predecessors.

            7. Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I don’t recall Democrats complaining much about the expenses run up by Republican First Ladies.

               You forgot about the complaints, but indeed it wasn’t about the expense, because they weren’t quite as expensive.

            8. behind Bill Clinton and her husband

               NTU may be considered conservative, but I’m not sure about the bias of the writer. She is after all a member of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Political Science Department. And apparently this isn’t Jim’s first time researching this nugget. I guess props for keeping to the same script a year later.

            9. “I find the fascination with the Michelle Obama’s lifestyle rather ugly. Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I don’t recall Democrats complaining much about the expenses run up by Republican First Ladies.”

               Lol what? Democrats are always dicks to GOP first ladies and ladies in general. They even went after Sarah Palin’s children.

               You have to have some basic civility before you can complain about it.

            10. And apparently this isn’t Jim’s first time researching this nugget.

                Ha! No, that isn’t me, Jim is just a very common name.

         3. As a newly-minted far Left Progressive Stalinist Social Justice Storm Trooper, I must agree with Comrade Jim. Having a Democrat in the White House is so important, that we cannot worry about whether she has committed several federal felonies, as it now appears evident that she has. We cannot let trivialities such as the law stand in the way of our march to the future!

            1. Obviously if Hillary Clinton were actually convicted of a felony that would change the picture considerably, but that seems very unlikely. And I expect that GOP voters will have no trouble lining up behind a nominee who has been associated with or accused of serious wrongdoing. Just as I rationalize that having a Democrat in the Oval Office is more important than perfect adherence to the records act, they will rationalize that not having a Democrat in the White House is more important than whatever rules or laws their candidate has broken.

            2. I expect that GOP voters will have no trouble lining up behind a nominee who has been associated with or accused of serious wrongdoing.

               Keep digging up the MS word memos from 1970, showing the duplicity of GOP candidates. It is good enough for Democrat voters.

            3. Even if she was convicted, she needs to be elected. She’s responsible for our wonderful new relationship with Russia, after all.

2. “My name is Hillary Gump. You can call me Hillary Gump>”

   http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/hillary-gump/

3. Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I don’t recall Democrats complaining much about the expenses run up by Republican First Ladies.

   You certainly have forgotten. Nancy Reagan’s china purchase was a major hand-wringing event from the Left.

   1. Thanks for that reminder — the Democrats definitely used Nancy Reagan’s china and fancy wardrobe to paint her as rich and out of touch with ordinary voters. Do you think that was wise or fair?

      1. I couldn’t care less about Michelle Obama. She’s ungrateful and spoiled.

      2. So we are supposed to be fair to politicians? Again, you think this is about GOP vs Democrats, when most of us think it is about smaller federal government spending less of taxpayer dollars. Now if Nancy purchased her own china and wardrobe (very likely), then yeah its unfair in so much as it would be unfair to talk about Romney’s money or Teresa Heinz’s money (because its not Kerry’s), yet it was still discussed.

         And here is the thing, if the media has no problem discussing those things, then they really should spend more time covering the waste of taxpayers’ money on vacation. And it is a waste, when Michelle and Barack supposedly went on the same vacation, but took different planes (it has happened many times, I found a trip to Martha’s Vineyard, one to California, and one to Hawaii without hardly trying). It doesn’t matter if it is Michelle now or Laura then, the President is given plenty of money to go on their own vacation. And yes, the Secret Service racks up much of the expense, but that needs to be curtailed as well. It is a heavily bloated organization that is inefficient to the point of incompetence and definitely tainted with enough corruption.

      3. If (I have no idea) Nancy Reagan’s wardrobe & china were purchased with taxpayer money, then IMHO criticism is certainly warranted, just as is Michelle Obama’s (if, likewise, it’s taxpayer money).

         Oh, and BTW, Jim, no, not all Republicans are silent when it comes to corruption on our own side. I’ll mention Porkbusters, a conservative movement that went after a Republican run congress for corruption (pork). I’ll also mention that many, myself included, were disgusted by some of the lack of transparency and deliberate obfuscation in those years, and spoke out against it.

         Regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, it’s downright pathetic that Democrats are so willing to turn a blind eye to it, just the same as if Republicans did the same to a similarly soiled R candidate.

         There’s also the fact that the e-mail and other scandals will hurt Hillary Clinton badly in the general election (not to mention a new one making great October surprise material). Almost any Republican candidate will be able to get a lot of mileage out of the Clinton scandals. So much so that the Republican party would have to be stupid beyond all measure to nominate a candidate who couldn’t.

         But, fear not, the Republicans aren’t known as the party of stupid for nothing, and might do just that via nominating a guy who, as governor, likewise had a private e-mail server. Jeb Bush.

         1. I think it’s more likely that they’ll nominate Scott Walker, who has his own private email server story.

            1. Again, this is nonsense. Wisconsin is a state office, not a federal office.

               But you forget about Federalism all the time.

            2. He certainly has a trumped up John Doe story. The DA really should be in jail for such abuse of power.

               Alas, Rick Perry has an indictment as well for exercising his gubernatorial right to veto. And so another DA that should be in jail for 2 different count of abuse of power, and her 2nd DWI.

      4. As is typical of you – you totally miss the point.

         The point, befuddled one, is that the very same media who castigated a GOP First Lady for expensive China is totally and utterly silent about the huge bills racked up by Michelle.

         Your side gets free passes by the media who are….on your side. The media is anything but balanced and fair.

4. “Democrats in general: we have serious misgivings about Hillary Clinton,”

   So Hillary can ignore record retention policies, destroy records, deny subpoenaed records, and alter emails turned over and this only gives you some misgivings?

   And the emails she altered and failed to turn over show vast corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. SHe was plotting to split up Libya’s natural resources. The Obama administration went to war for Hillary’s oil.

   The Iraq war wasn’t about oil. Bush, Cheney, and their friends didn’t get all the oil contracts. But that never stopped the left from rioting for 8 years. Now, Hillary is exposed as going to war for oil and personal enrichment, the greatest sin to Democrats, and Democrats say and do nothing.

   You guys really don’t believe in any of the ideals you claim to champion.

   1. So Hillary can ignore record retention policies, destroy records, deny subpoenaed records, and alter emails turned over and this only gives you some misgivings?

      Yes. Furthermore, I expect the GOP nominee to be at least as compromised, in one way or another, and I don’t expect that to keep GOP partisans from giving him their support.

      I’d like a better alternative — someone less secretive than Hillary and at least as likely to win — but sadly the 22nd amendment is still on the books.

      1. You’re right, the 22nd amendment should be repealed. That way you can destroy more of my personal freedoms.

         1. I’m going to ask an honest question, even at the risk of ending up on a watch list somewhere.

            Show of hands from anyone who thinks, in the current geopolitical and regional socio-economic climate, that the repeal of the 22nd Amendment would NOT end up being re-instituted/reinforced by a lead slug of some sort?

            Please understand that I’m not advocating nor saying I would ever do such a thing.

            But honestly, with the constant race-baiting, divisive politics, and continued pressure on the economic well-being of the country, and after seeing what sort of nutjobs still exist in places like South Carolina, how many Secret Service members would end up in harm’s way if Obama took a third term on Pennsylvania Avenue?

            And, for the record, I also think that nearly the same pressure would be exerted on the Office if Dubya took a third term; we’re not a very stable society right now, and any attempt to create an emperorship by EITHER party would likely have dire consequences for the future of our Republic.

            1. Obama has been at risk of assassination all along; anyone running for president faces that risk.

               Letting voters choose a president who’s already served two terms is not creating an emperorship, it’s giving voters a choice.

               That way you can destroy more of my personal freedoms.

               The 22nd amendment eliminates your freedom to vote for the person you think is the best candidate, if that person has already served two terms. Repealing the amendment would restore that freedom.

      2. “I’d like a better alternative — someone less secretive than Hillary and at least as likely to win — but sadly the 22nd amendment is still on the books.”

         I’m glad I didn’t have my coffee up to my mouth when I read this… Are you seriously suggesting what I think you’re suggesting? Emperor For Life Obama?!?

         I shudder at the thought of getting an answer to this, but I’ll ask it anyway, because I’m morbidly curious…

         Who, of the current living Ex-presidents, do you see as being less secretive than Hillary and “at least as likely to win”? Obviously I guessed Obama above, but I might as well leave it open to the possibility of Dubya or Billy Bob. Hot Lips H and Admiral Peanut remain wholly unaffected by the 22nd.

         1. Yes, I was thinking of Obama. If he could run again I think he’d have better odds of winning than Hillary, and be a better president. For that matter, I think there’s a decent chance that Bill Clinton would be a better president in 2017 than Hillary. The point is that they should get to choose whether to run, and the voters should get to choose whether to elect them again. The 22nd amendment curtails our right to choose the best person for the job.

            1. Obama wouldn’t have a prayer of getting re-elected again. A lot of voters want their 2012 votes back.

            2. Obama’s approval ratings today are higher than they were for much of his first term, after which he was re-elected handily. Barring a sharp economic downturn, I don’t think he’d have any trouble winning a third term.

            3. That was before everyone finally figured out what a liar he is.

            4. Why are you for that but not for my freedom to opt out of health care? You are an incredible hypocrite. (Hugs.)

            5. On the other hand, repealing the 22nd might take some of the wind out of Obama’s sails. Can you imagine how he would act if he actually had to worry about getting re-elected instead of having a free pass to do whatever he wanted?

               A small part of me also would like to see if a third Obama term could get us all the way to a Republican Supermajority in both houses. The apoplexy of the left after THAT mid-term would almost be worth it.

               Almost.

            6. A liar wrote: Obama’s approval ratings today are higher than they were for much of his first term

5. The 22nd amendment eliminates your freedom to vote for the person you think is the best candidate, if that person has already served two terms. Repealing the amendment would restore that freedom.

   Wow, such a consolation from one who has removed my right to health care, flooded the voting system with welfare parasites, stolen my tax dollars to feed corporate kleptocrats and removed my freedom of purchasing by making the dollar worthless and making my descendants tax slaves to pay off the enormous debt you’ve created.

   “But don’t worry,” you say, “the dog shit I’m feeding you has vitamins and minerals that the dog didn’t eat.”

   1. Don’t you get it? Jim is offering you the most valuable freedom of all: the freedom to vote to have even more of your freedoms taken away!

      1. Thanks, Rand!

         I’m just a stupid plebian, I didn’t see the light!

6. Jim,

   Can you please explain to me how you can rectify the 22nd amendment with Obamacare? I seriously want to know. What goes on in that head of yours?

Comments are closed.