It’s her turn to get grilled.
As someone noted on Twitter this morning, somewhere is an underpaid IT guy who’s not going to be willing to do time for Hillary. It’s really starting to look like the White House is getting ready to throw Hillary under the bus. Does that mean Biden? Hard to see who else they’d throw their support to. He’d be the natural one to be an Obama third term.
[Update a few minutes later]
A majority (and not just “likely voters”) want there to be a criminal probe. Because they’re not as stupid as the Democrats need them to be.
And it looks like she’s not going to get Ron Fournier back:
Where do I start? How about with the Clinton campaign’s ridiculous suggestion that coughing up the server and email were voluntary acts. We know that’s bunk—because Clinton herself said she wouldn’t surrender the people’s records without a fight.
As Safire noted in the 90s, she is a congenital liar. Of course, Democrats normally like that; so is Bill, but he’s a lot better at it.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Democrats are in near-panic mode. This is hilarious:
Trippi said another Democrat might well get into the race, but that beating Clinton was a very different proposition.
“I don’t think Joe Biden has given up on his desire to run for president and I’m sure there are others out there who want to get into this race. I just don’t see a path yet for how you get to the nomination,” he said.
…That leaves many Democrats in a painful place: Believing that, in the end, Clinton will be the nominee but worrying that her vulnerabilities could negate the many advantages — from demographics to the electoral college map — that they believe the party nominee should enjoy.
The progressive strategist wondered “how much longer this drip, drip, drip” of controversy surrounding the emails would continue.
“There’s a hesitance that emerges in terms of her trustworthiness,” the source said. “At some point, people will start to ask whether this hurts her electability in the general election.”
You don’t say.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, this is hilarious, too:
But concerned Democrats keep coming back to the same question: Why did the Clinton campaign not simply hand over the private server when the controversy first erupted in March?
“It’s bizarre,” said the Democratic strategist. “Let me give you some simple strategic communications advice: Put everything out first, on your terms. If you wait, or you are forced to do it, you always lose and look bad. … That is exactly what is happening here, and I find it inexplicable.”
I know this sounds crazy, but try applying Occam’s Razor. She didn’t turn it over for the same reason she set it up in the first place, in order to protect and cover up a lot of sleazy/criminal/duplicitous activity.
[Friday-morning update]
To illustrate why this matters so much, perhaps you will forgive me an analogy? Imagine that you are writing a manuscript by hand, and that your initial draft contains all the crossings out, substitutions, and spelling errors that initial drafts tend to include. Next, imagine that having completed that draft to your satisfaction, you make a perfect copy — minus all the changes and mistakes, of course — and then, lest anyone be privy to your imperfections, you burn the original. In such a case, handing over the finished draft would naturally be entirely useless to anyone who wanted to find out what changes you had made. Indeed, it would be of use only to those who believed that you were a perfect writer. That, effectively, is what Hillary Clinton has done here. As I noted yesterday, she may still come a cropper. But if so, it will be because she didn’t get rid of the incriminating materials when she had the chance.
As I noted in comments, one can plead the Fifth without an implication that one has done anything wrong. One cannot destroy evidence without that implication. The fact that she took this much trouble to make sure that even FBI forensics couldn’t get access to it will be viewed in court as having criminal intent.
[Late-morning update]
From a Democrat: The Party’s ticking Hillary time bomb:
For the past five months, those of us old enough to have lived through the 1990s have been enduring a deeply unpleasant bout of déjà vu-inspired dread. First the news breaks, inspiring the unavoidable thought, “How could [insert member of the Clinton family here] possibly have failed to realize that this would be a problem?” Then the barrage of counter-attacks from the Clinton machine against the story, poking holes, impugning motives, kicking up just enough dust to convince fair-minded observers that maybe, just maybe, there’s less to the story than it originally seemed. And finally, because journalists make mistakes and actually care about being able to stand behind the truth of what they publish, even those who ran the original story begin to backtrack, express uncertainties, and air self-doubts.
And then: Ka-Blam! The story is back and bigger than ever. Oh, that server we wouldn’t give to you? You can have it now, cleaned up all nice and tidy. There certainly weren’t any classified documents on there. Oh, there were? Oops, well, only those two — oh, I mean four — and don’t worry about how that’s just a “limited sample” of 40 emails out of tens of thousands; the inspector general of the Justice Department just got lucky. And hey, we deleted them, so who cares? (Freedom of information is for suckers.) Yes, of course, my “shadow” had access to that server and those classified emails, too. Why is that a problem? What, are you a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
Tick, tick, boom.
The amount of denial on display here is because they got away with so much in the 90s, the Dems just figure there is no limit to how much corruption, deception and cover up the American public will tolerate.
In terms of email, Huma’s status as “Special Government Employee” is equivalent to Jim’s rant of Rove serving both in the White House and having/using an RNC email address for his work with the RNC. In this case, Huma did work for the Clinton Foundation, which would be a legitimate use of a private email account, despite Jim’s claim that such is illegal when Republicans do so.
In this real world though, no one is upset that Huma used a private email server while supporting the Clinton Foundation. The issue is did she also have access to classified material found on those servers? The other tidbits seems like previous or other investigations that certainly show potential character flaws, such as conflict of interest or incorrect time card/billing the federal government.
Anyone else note the part about her starting out as a 19 year old intern for the Clinton’s?
Anyone else note the part about her starting out as a 19 year old intern for the Clinton’s?
Yes, that was the first I’d heard that.
According to reports, at least two documents classified as Top Secret/SI/TK were found in her emails. Let’s think about what would have to happen to get those documents there. First, TS/SCI messages are sent via the JWICS network which has no connectivity to unclassified networks. You can’t just email something from JWICS to an unclassified system. Someone had to download those documents, most likely onto a CD or DVD. After Manning and Snowden, they’re getting really picky about using thumb drives on classified networks. Any file downloads are supposed to be logged, but the person doing this probably skipped that step. It appears someone stripped out the classification markings from the document, which happens to be a felony. Classification markings aren’t just at the top and bottom of each page – each paragraph has its own markings. Within any given document, paragraphs can range from unclassified to the highest classification of the message. I’ve seen 200 page documents that were completely unclassified except for a single sentence, and the entire document was classified at the level of that one sentence. Next, the person had to take the media holding the messages and insert it into an unclassified system – which of course is also a major security breech. The documents were then sent without encryption to Hillary’s email system. Government computers are being attacked and hacked on a regular basis. Once the existence of Hillary’s email server was known, it likely was hacked as well.
The other day I pulled up the wiki on classified information and someone had modified the introduction to read:
It has since been corrected, but it was funny.
Clinton’s G-Mail account?
G-Mail? One (Ms. Clinton) could only hope! G-Mail is probably more secure than anything the gummint has cobbled together, and certainly more secure than . . . a . . . private . . . e-mail . . . server . . . in . . . her . . . home . . .
Paul, Clinton’s e-mail server was secure. Very secure. It was, after all, in the basement of a mansion guarded by the Secret Service. Thus, that E-mail server was totally secure. The top secret data illegally placed on it sure wasn’t, but the server itself was safe. Nobody, but nobody, was going to be able to sneak in and swipe its power supply, case cover, cooling fans, etc.
See? Nothing to worry about.
🙂
(Ugh, it’s becoming ever harder to satire Hillary, because as preposterous as it is for me to say that server was secure because it was in a guarded building, it’s poor satire because she’s said it herself.).
That re-subtitled video clip “making the rounds” showing the guys in military garb hustling to toss entire file cabinets out of balconies and upper-story windows so their comrades at ground level can feed a burn pile is at least a start at satire.
In the original, this reenactment of a regime attempting to hide its most dark secrets is dead serious, but in the satire, the frantic heaving of files over the sides takes on a comical appearance, especially since from a distance some of the cabinets look anachronistically like computer tower cases.
Yep Paul, it is a new Downfall Parody, and by new, I mean a different scene.
Poe’s Law strikes again!
I’m not familiar w the details, but are you sure they were so classified when they were on Clinton’s server? I thought that it just meant that they were material that certainly should not have been sent or received there, since they were classified top secret as soon as someone classified them. That would answer your issue. But correct me.
IIRC, instead of turning over electronically searchable files, Hillary’s staff turned over some 55,000 printed pages of text messages. That’s a nice stalling tactic. A sample of some 40 of those messages were examined and I think 4 of them turned out to be classified, with 2 being TS/SI/TK. If my recall is accurate, imagine how many classified messages will turn up when all 55,000 pages are examined. Those were messages from her email server.
Some of the classifications, apparently, indicate documents that could not possibly have been unclassified before she got them. This is the opinion of people who claim to have worked with classified material, which claim I’m not in a position to verify, but perhaps someone here can advise.
In any case, the “They weren’t classified when I received them” defense strikes me as characteristically convenient as a Clinton dodge, and characteristically condescending to the public.
Someone already did.
And blatant admission of profound incompetence in her job.
I am not sure that matters as classified information was stored on the server in a manner that was illegal right up until the server was wiped. And even if Hillary destroyed all evidence in her emails, she is responsible for everyone else using that server as it was her personal server in her residence.
She ought to be held to the same standard as Petraeus, who on the favoritism scale did far more for our country than Hillary.
Under Obama, Democrats have tried to use the harshest of punishments for any hint of am crime for non-Democrats while law breaking Democrats receive zero attention from DOJ and zero punishments.
“Once the existence of Hillary’s email server was known, it likely was hacked as well.”
Guccifer hacked her email but Hillary didn’t look through what he had released online before turning over her emails, which ended up showing that she didn’t turn over all of her emails. I think that was how Blumenthal got dragged in?
I think it more likely that Obama would throw support to a like-minded outsider than to Biden.
Probably Elizabeth Warren.
Problem is that Warren and Sanders would split the hard leftist vote, and Hillary might still sneak in.
I think the hard leftists think of Warren as a kindred spirit. Certainly is true here in Ma where the crazies voted her in.
In my opinion, Hillary won’t sneak in because Hillary is going to be hounded out of the race by Obama. And the only thing that might stop Obama from doing that is a Sampson-like move on Hillary’s part regarding Benghazi.
Question is:
is Hillary willing to wrap the rising sun bandanna on her forehead and scream Banzai!!!!!
There’s always Michelle. You know the Press would be completely in the tank for her like they are for BHO. She’s at least as big a socialist as Sanders and Lieawatha, so the base would probably welcome her.
If HRC is the “moderate” for the Democrats, her departure from the race would make room for another moderate to come in. Here in New York, we have seen a number of TV spots that seemed aimed at a national audience, depicting Gov. Cuomo as a great leader and johnny-on-the-spot in a crisis. I have no doubt he is mulling over a run.
He is governor of one of the largest states and he has a name that means something to Democrats, so if he dove in, he would probably make a very big splash. He would not be my choice, of course, and his actions running HUD – lending rules – were one of the root causes of the whole 2007 meltdown. Still, that would be an argument for the general election; if he chooses to go after the nomination, absent an exonerated Hillary, I think he would stand a fair chance in the primaries.
Trump? If you ignore ideology (because Trump doesn’t have one) the consequences match.
“It’s really starting to look like the White House is getting ready to throw Hillary under the bus. ”
In my opinion, the White House is the source of all this.
“Does that mean Biden? Hard to see who else they’d throw their support to. ”
Not hard at all:
Liawatha Warren
Michelle
“Despite the desire for a criminal inquiry, the poll indicated that 51 percent of voters believed Clinton’s use of an in-home email system was a matter of convenience, compared with 38 percent who thought she may have been trying to hide something.”
Heh – simplest explanation is that she did it for convenience, but then _also_ found it convenient to be able to speak off the books. By now, there are lots of things on the emails she needs to hide. Some may be illegal; many others would reinforce the public image of her that she can’t be trusted. And there are likely literally thousands of emails that would turn out to need to be classified.
The rules about government officials using personal email systems to conduct official business don’t give a damn about personal convenience. Lower-ranking people were fired at the State Department for doing that and they didn’t have classified info.
Meanwhile, back at the Clinton compound, it’s Klintonerdämmerung.
Not sure how it is more convenient to buy, set up, and maintain a server for oneself and staff rather than just picking a name and password for a government system.
What makes this set up convenient? The only convenient thing about it is the ease with which it could be destroyed or altered.
The part that boggles me is:
I -think- the first violation has to necessarily happen upstream.
Having a classified (TS/SCI, whatever) document on the unsecure server: Problem. But someone sent it there. That should be a felony too, no?
At least, the circus of lights flashing, computer screens auto-depowering(!), all the worker-bees flipping over their written work, and all of these other shenanigans are taken pretty darn seriously at places like Boeing and General Dynamics when not-fully-cleared -workers- pass through.
Actively sending something out of a secured area?
None of the SCIFs that I’ve worked in had unclassified systems in them. Odds are the documents were smuggled out of the SCIF, not emailed.
I wonder if they had an auto-forwarding of emails for Clinton via State’s Exchange server. If so, that would mean the sender might not have known, but it would also mean IT should have expected the problem this would cause.
I didn’t realize that the TS/SCI/SI/TK information in the e-mails the IG found contained satellite imagery. That means that the information was stripped of markings and sent to her, and, yes, that is a felony. BTW, SI means “Special Intelligence” and TK stands for “Talent Keyhole,” which refers to satellite imagery. You need to be read into each program, and then only if you have a need to know. Hillary had access to all of them.
Up until now, I assumed that Hillary would have just discussed the contents of the President’s Daily Briefing on what is essentially an open mic. But it appears that someone actually did generate “unclassified” versions of classified documents. If I did that, they’d lock me up and throw away the key. But, as Rand so eloquently puts it, laws are for little people.
According to this article, it wasn’t satellite imagery but intelligence gained from satellite communications intercepts such as ELINT, COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, etc.
And according to this article, one of the emails was a discussion of a public news article about a classified drone program, and the other email “appears more suspect” but wasn’t “lifted” from classified materials and may be a case of “‘parallel reporting’ — different people knowing the same thing through different means.”
Doesn’t matter. There are lots of examples of information known to the public but still classified, preventing people with clearances from being able to speak about it.
They run into this problem on the Space Show from time to time. But then again, those are people who have, and choose to, live according to the laws that regulate their occupation and not Democrat politicians whom are above the law apparently.
Also, the emails you cite are just a small sample of what Hillary turned over. No telling what the other emails she turned over contain, the emails she altered, or the emails she didn’t turn over contain.
There are lots of examples of information known to the public but still classified
Which means that the mere presence of classified information in an email message does not imply a security breach, since the information may have come from a public source.
Which means that the mere presence of classified information in an email message does not imply a security breach, since the information may have come from a public source.
Wrong. I remember a crapstorm at work several years ago when someone at my company copied information from Global Security.org or FAS.org into an email. It turned out those sites frequently post classified information. Multiple email servers and computers had to be scrubbed after that and those sites were blocked from our company computers. The same think happens even today with Wikileaks and the site where Snowden’s stuff is posted. Just because something came from an unclassified source doesn’t itself mean the information is unclassified.
There’s also the challenges resulting from aggregation of data. Two or more pieces of information by themselves may be unclassified but when you put them together, they can become classified. An example would be a piece of information and the source of the information. I’ve worked with this stuff for almost my entire adult life (I’m 58) and it is quite complicated. We contractors can easily destroy our careers by committing a security violation, even risking jail time. For high ranking government officials (especially Democrats), not so much. Rules and laws are for the little people.
First I’ve heard that there was imagery. As for the transfer of the info, there is also the possibility that the criminal simply read the info on JWICS, walked out of the SCIF, and then just typed it into an unclass email. Something like, “HRC, Fresh off the bird. XX told YY to pound sand.” Identifying the source and the info retrieved meets all the classification requirements. OBTW, the smartest woman on the planet would know unclas from TS.
Wouldn’t Control-C and Control-V (copy & paste) work even more easily, or are such systems air separated? I don’t see how as it’s easy enough to run multiple systems on a single physical computer given the ubiquity of virtual machine software such as VMWare and VirtualBox. If I didn’t give a damn about security (which is increasingly sounds likely for this group), that’s what I would do. Run my normal personal laptop for most work and within a VM window run my secure system — or the other way around. Transferring between the two is simple as copy & paste.
You don’t have access to an unclassified computer and a classified computer at the same time.
In law and practice, anyway.
Rand, do you for a moment believe that Queen Hillary and here cronies believe that rules regarding proper use of secure systems apply to them? If this were the case, her candidacy would not be threatened by this. In the end it seems Hillary will be brought down by arrogance, stupidity, paranoia and a blatant disregard for rules she would have no problem wielding against political foes if the opportunity arose.
Laws don’t apply to Democrats, not even for fixing and vaccinating their cats.
Sun had a version of Solaris which would run apps in different security zones which explicitly prevented copy-and-paste from a more secure app into a less secure one. So, if you were allowed to mix-and-match security levels on the same system, I’d hope they would use similar software.
Aside from the whole “breaking the law” aspect of Hillary having a private email server as SoS, this seems to open her up to future blackmail. Assume for now this scandal blows over and she ultimately is elected president. In the future, when attempting sensitive international negotiations or leaning on an unfriendly government, a foreign entity lets Hillary know through back channels she either plays along as they desire or they will release the full archive of emails taken from her unsecured private server — something that would immediately open her up to impeachment and completely undermine her credibility in domestic and international politics.
The hypothetical foreign entity doesn’t even actually have to have the emails. Just the threat alone opens Hillary to blackmail as she really can’t be sure weather they might be bluffing or not.
The issue here isn’t so much how damaging the actual content of any emails might be, but rather that Hillary has painted herself into a corner where the slightest misstep that demonstrates she’s lying could have overwhelming negative consequences for her. As with Nixon, it’s not the crime, but the cover-up which makes her so vulnerable to blackmail.
There was no law against Hillary Clinton having a private email server as SoS, just as there was no law against Colin Powell having a private email account as SoS.
There was no law against Hillary Clinton having a private email server as SoS
There was and is a law against using it exclusively for SoS business, and receiving, sending and storing classified information on it. There is also a law against deliberate destruction of official documents. There is also a law against removing classification markings from documents. There have been many laws broken here, by many people, including Hillary.
Pro tip. While pleading the Fifth Amendment doesn’t carry an implication of guilt, spoliation of evidence (which is what she did) does.
There was and is a law against using it exclusively for SoS business
What law?
sending and storing classified information on it
So if I have a personal email server, and someone forwards classified information to me, I’ve broken the law as soon as the message arrives (because I’m storing classified information)? Seems doubtful.
There is also a law against deliberate destruction of official documents
Can anyone prove that Clinton deliberately destroyed any official documents (as opposed to personal emails)? Did Powell break that law when he deleted all his email?
There is also a law against removing classification markings from documents.
There are other ways for classified information to exist without such markings.
spoliation of evidence (which is what she did)
So now her personal emails are “evidence”? What does that make Powell’s work emails?
Can you remind me again what Colin Powell was being investigated for, that had his email under subpoena?
sending and storing classified information on it
So if I have a personal email server, and someone forwards classified information to me, I’ve broken the law as soon as the message arrives (because I’m storing classified information)? Seems doubtful.
It isn’t doubtful at all. If someone sends you classified information and you find out about it, you’re supposed to report it so your system (including any relevant backups) can be sanitized. That doesn’t mean erasing the entire contents of your email server, just permanently wiping any and all classified data.
Just as soon as you remind me when Clinton’s personal emails were subpoenaed :).
This is a reminder of the double-standard faced by the Clintons. You subject them to constant investigations, and thereby turn routine actions (like deleting personal emails) into (you hope) scandals and crimes. Colin Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State was a thousand times more investigation-worthy than Clinton’s, just going by the relative U.S. death tolls in Iraq and Libya, but there’s no investigate-Colin-Powell industry. So he can delete not only all his personal emails, but also all his work emails, including who knows how much classified information and official government records, and there’s nary a peep of protest.
So your smart take is that it’s perfectly reasonable for her to set up her own private server, and in defiance of the Records Act, instructions from the White House, and a reprimand from her to one of her own State Department employees to not do the same thing, to use it for ALL of her government communications, so it will make it easier for her to destroy evidence, because she gets investigated a lot?
I think you’re confusing cause and effect here.
If someone sends you classified information and you find out about it, you’re supposed to report it
So if Clinton says she didn’t read that email carefully enough to notice the classified information, she’s off the hook?
No.
So your smart take is that it’s perfectly reasonable for her to set up her own private server
No, I think it was a mistake, and I believe she’s said so as well.
in defiance of the Records Act
No more so than Powell’s use of a private account. Less so, in fact, since at least Clinton belatedly handed over her work emails for archiving, rather than deleting them all.
to use it for ALL of her government communications
Just like Powell.
so it will make it easier for her to destroy evidence
Same goes for Powell.
because she gets investigated a lot?
Why are we talking about Clinton emails? Because Congress wanted to look at them. Why? Because they are investigating Benghazi, again. Why? No one can argue with a straight face that it’s because Benghazi was an unprecedented catastrophe that requires more separate investigations than 9/11 or the decision to invade Iraq. Republicans in Congress are still investigating Benghazi because they want a Republican to win the 2016 election, and continued attention to a disaster on Clinton’s watch, along with the accompanying fishing expedition through any piece of her communications that they can get their hands on, can only help the GOP nominee.
So now we’re talking about things like whether Clinton was wrong to not notice and report that some email messages sent to her contained classified information — a question that tells us absolutely nothing about why four Americans died in Libya, or what we should do differently in the future, but who cares? That isn’t what this was ever about. It was and is about political advantage in next year’s election, and for that purpose one scandal serves as well as the next.
If you’re Hillary Clinton this has to feel very familiar. An investigation into a failed land deal turned into an investigation of such disparate topics as Vince Foster’s suicide, firings in the White House travel office, Rose Law firm billing records, and ultimately Bill Clinton’s testimony in a civil sexual harassment lawsuit deposition specifically prepared to catch him lying about an affair. It was then, as it is today, a frantic grabbing at any loose thread that might, the investigators hope, get the whole garment to unravel. The nature of the particular thread they’re pulling today hardly seems important.
Clinton belatedly handed over her work emails for archiving, rather than deleting them all.
We don’t know that she did that. We only know that she handed over a subset of them.
There is a reason she gets investigated a lot, and it’s not because of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, unless you think that Janet Reno was in on it.
When you find the news story that Powell deliberately wiped his personal hard drive of all data to prevent even FBI forensics experts from being able to get at it, get back to us. We’re getting a little tired of hearing about Colin Powell.
Jim,
Riddle me this: Why did she set up a physical server instead of paying a hosting company to lease her space for her domain on one of their servers?
Short of a large business, it is always cheaper to do this than try and maintain a physical server and pay for an admin.
The only answer Occam provides me is she wanted direct physical access to the storage media and I can only think of one reason for that.
“Can anyone prove that Clinton deliberately destroyed any official documents”
And thus Jim echoes Hillary’s “not one shred of evidence” approach, since she had it shredded. No “of course I didn’t do X”, but “nyaah nyaah nyaah, you’ll never find evidence”.
The server itself may be lawful, but the manner in which it was used and the information it contained may be unlawful. Just as the possession of a USB drive by Snowden was lawful, but the manner in which he used it and the information he placed on it was unlawful.
I read that Al Gore is mulling over a run….no not a jog – that would give him a heart attack plus he couldn’ t do without the carbn-spewing jets and vast SUV motorcades….but, rather a run at the Dem nomination.
And don’t forget John Effing Kerry who is thinking mighty highly of himself at the moment.
I know this sounds crazy, but try applying Occam’s Razor. wshe didn’t turn it over for the same reason she set it up in the first place, in order to protect and cover up a lot of sleazy/criminal/duplicitous activity.
Or: she used a private server and didn’t turn it over because making information available to her political enemies — even when it’s been benign — has never helped her, so her default response in any situation is to be secretive. It’s a troubling instinct, but it doesn’t mean she’s covering up a crime, any more than Colin Powell’s decision to delete the emails from his private account means that he was covering up a crime.
It’s like asking why Obama didn’t push to get his long-form birth certificate released earlier. Some (including the current GOP frontrunner) assumed it was because he had something to hide; they were wrong.
Everyone has political enemies but that doesn’t mean they get to break the law. The same laws the Obama administration has been using against generals and journalists should also apply to Democrats.
Powell was also not destroying evidence subpoenaed by congress and the courts.
Nixon had enemies — he even made a list. I think you need to give Jim credit on this one. Nixon had enemies, Hillary has enemies. It all makes sense now.
When did the Obama administration prosecute a general or journalist for receiving an email forward of a discussion that included information that was not marked as classified, but possibly (depending on who you ask) should have been (in which case it should never have been sent in the first place)?
We’ll never know how much classified information there was in Powell’s email, because he destroyed it all.
“When did the Obama administration prosecute a general ”
You never heard of General Petraeus?
“or journalist”
James Risen? James Rosen? The AP? Didn’t Obama also tap congress’s phones during the AP drag net?
“that was not marked as classified”
Hillary isn’t in trouble for sending non-classified emails or storing non-classified emails on the server in her basement.
“We’ll never know how much classified information there was in Powell’s email”
Too bad Powell wasn’t under subpoena to turn them over.
Democrats push for all of these transparency rules but then immediately pretend they don’t exist. We will make you live by the same rules you force on others.
making information available to her political enemies — even when it’s been benign — has never helped her
Can you just pause for a moment and honestly attempt to comprehend the extraordinariness of that.
1) What “politician” doesn’t have “political enemies”?
2) What “politician” would expect making information available to their “political enemies” would “help them”?
3) What does it say about Hillary Clinton that she (and her sycophants) would expect to be treated differently than all other politicians?
These are obviously rhetorical Jim, but as one of her sycophants I’d really like your response to 3).
Of course all politicians are subject to the same impulses that would lead Hillary Clinton to be secretive, but few if any have as much first-hand experience with being on the receiving end of politically-motivated investigations on the same scale. Based on past experience she expects to be treated less fairly than other politicians, and therefore acts more suspiciously, which ramps up the intensity of the scrutiny, which in turn increases her paranoia, and on and on in a feedback loop.
I don’t get any sense that she looks at the Clinton wars of the 1990s and thinks to herself, gee, we should have been more open about Whitewater and Bill’s affairs. Instead, I think her take-away is that there are people who will use anything and everything to try to destroy her and her husband as political actors. That lesson, if anything, encourages future reckless and questionable behavior, because what difference does it make? Why worry about appeasing critics who will never be appeased?
Another lesson she’s apparently taken from her past is that digging in as long as possible is a winning strategy. Her husband left the White House in triumph, and the only major setback of her political career — losing the 2008 nomination — was due to issues unrelated to investigations and transparency. So why change the game plan? She and her team must believe that this scrutiny, like that of the past, will eventually fall by the wayside if she fights it every step of the way.
In other words, just as I said. They’ve gotten away with their crimes, corruption and cover ups for decades. Why would they think they can’t continue to do so?
The thing is, the way they respond to scrutiny doesn’t tell you anything about whether they’re actually guilty of anything. It makes just as much sense as a response to unjustified persecution. They may well be guilty of various things, but the fact that they’re always stonewalling isn’t evidence one way or the other.
The thing is, the way they respond to scrutiny doesn’t tell you anything about whether they’re actually guilty of anything.
As I said, any court in the land will view her behavior as indicative of guilt.
but few if any have as much first-hand experience with being on the receiving end of politically-motivated investigations on the same scale
Except for Richard Nixon.
Based on past experience she expects to be treated less fairly than other politicians.
ROFL. Based on past experience I’m sure she expects the media to treat her as they always have, with kid gloves and fawning myopia.
The thing is, the way they respond to scrutiny doesn’t tell you anything about whether they’re actually guilty of anything.
ROFL. Again. So they respond to scrutiny the same way guilty people respond to scrutiny, as opposed to the way innocent people respond to scrutiny, and the way they KNOW innocent people respond to scrutiny (and they are lawyers), … but that doesn’t mean anything.
As Tony Stark said… I got nothing.
I’m sure she expects the media to treat her as they always have, with kid gloves and fawning myopia.
You must not read the New York Times, a generally sensible newspaper that loses its mind whenever it writes about the Clintons (most recently running, and then quickly correcting, a story falsely claiming that Clinton had been referred for criminal investigation).
There are good arguments against electing Al Gore; his weight isn’t one of them (any more than it’s an argument against Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee), and neither is his use of private jets and SUVs (which are used by most if not all of the major candidates).
I’d like to see Gore run — it’d make for a better primary, and if he won he’d be a good president. But I don’t expect him to run unless Hillary drops out or loses the support of the party establishment.
“There are good arguments against electing Al Gore; …… and neither is his use of private jets and SUVs (which are used by most if not all of the major candidates).”
But most of the major candidates aren’t spouting utter nonsense about global warming and then flouting the very strictures they would apply to us. Yet another case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
The hypocrisy is very thick when it comes to Gore.
They want everyone to live a subsistence lifestyle and crap in holes in the ground while the Democrat elite and politically connected live in giant mansions with giant yards with giant cars and giant airplanes and the best medical care other people’s money can pay for.
flouting the very strictures they would apply to us
The “stricture” that Gore would apply is a price on carbon emissions, which would apply to everyone. My understanding is that he attempts to pay such a price today voluntarily. Submitting to a not-yet-imposed stricture is the very opposite of “flouting” it.
“Do as I say, not as I do.”
Show me an example of Gore saying that people should abstain from flying in private jets or riding in SUVs.
How manny beachfront mannsions does he have? That’s one mann who doesn’t seem to believe the things he is making billions from.
Maybe Gore is buying up beachfront property and building large houses with huge, truly amazingly huge, lawns in order to protect the land from erosion?
No Gore doesn’t say “don’t fly in private jets”. He simply decries the use of carbon-based fuels as EEEEVIL, then flies in private jets.
To quote Glenn Reynolds: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis”.
Every once in a while, Jim, you say something reasonable. Then you write utterly stupid stuff like this.
Thanks, I think! What’s the stupid part, that we shouldn’t care about candidates’ weight, that we shouldn’t care if they use private jets and SUVs, that Gore would be a good president, or that he probably won’t run?
…and neither is his use of private jets and SUVs (which are used by most if not all of the major candidates).
The fact that you can’t see Gore’s hypocrisy speaks volumes. As George Orwell said, “Some animals are more equal than others.”
But that’s how you roll, isn’t it? You get cheap health care while others suffer. Millions of illegals get free health care, while Americans pay up the nose. Hillary gets a free pass at her felonies while the IRS goes after patriots.
The fact that you can’t see Gore’s hypocrisy speaks volumes.
There’s nothing hypocritical about riding in private jets and believing that the government should tax or otherwise put a price on carbon emissions. Climate change is an issue of public policy, not private morality.
You get cheap health care while others suffer.
I pay the same prices as anyone else with my insurance policy, and I pay the same price for my insurance as any other non-smoker my age in my state. What are you talking about?
Millions of illegals get free health care
How are millions of illegals (sic) getting free health care?
You are once more correct in saying there is nothing hypocritical about Mr. Gore riding in private jets and supporting a carbon tax. To the extent that Mr. Gore has acquired his wealth fair-and-square (c’mon everyone apart from Jim, work with me here), he would pay the tax on the jet fuel he consumes in proportion to what I will pay on the gas I put into my 20-year-old Taurus.
The thing is that as Carly Fiorina and other point out, U.S. citizens taxing themselves to curtail hydrocarbon use will do nothing about China and India. By the same token, what Jerry Brown is doing in California is futile because it is not binding on the entire U.S. and especially not binding on China or India. And certainly Al Gore voluntarily cutting out private jets is not binding on California and in turn the U.S., China, or India; it would be a futile gesture.
But there is where Ms. Fiorina is so wrong and along with her, Carly Fiorina is wrong, Al Gore is wrong, and Jim is wrong whereas Jerry Brown is right and Barack Obama is right.
If Al Gore takes personal steps to curtail carbon, it may induce the people of California, the U.S., and in turn China and India to reduce carbon emissions. It is a question of leadership, initiative, taking the first step, and yes, setting a moral example.
An example of this is in the field of Nuclear Proliferation. The five members of the Security Council have their nuclear arsenals but everyone else is supposed to be humiliated by intrusive inspections and international oversight and being dependent on those countries for enriched uranium for their peaceful civilian power plants?
Well yes, but everyone “gives up” something. The well-armed U.S. is party to a comprehensive test-ban agreement which has the effect of gradually disarming us over time because as the weapons get to twice the age of my Taurus, they become less certain as to their military capability.
Admittedly, if Mr. Gore rode in the cattle-car back section of the jumbo jet, if he downsized his house and put in the sort of geothermal system George W Bush has in Crawford, a bunch of wingers would accuse him of being filled with “smug” for making energy saving improvements many of us wish we could afford (has anyone priced a geothermal setup lately)?
But Albert Gore, Jr. being such an iconic and vocal advocate of the climate-change cause and him maintaining his carbon-intense lifestyle is indeed a problem, and if Jim defensively doesn’t see it that way, gosh, I don’t know.
Heck, in an alternative universe where I beat Governor Kasich to be the first Croatian-American president, I think I would ditch the big jet. Yeah, yeah, Leader of the Free World with unique security concerns, and a Presidential trip involves not just Air Force but a small squadron of C-141 Starlifters bringing all his “gear.” But do Frankie, Angie, or goodness forbid, Davie fly around on an A-380? I think they have “downsized” to something with a lighter carbon footprint.
If we had a president really serious about climate change, I think Air Force One would change to a Navy P-3. Or a C-130, say, one of the “cool” late models with the prop-fans. Four engines, how could the Secret Service object. Turboprop cabin noise? I would wear earplugs or better yet, a helmet. Mr. Todd, can you repeat your question, MR. TODD, PLEASE REPEAT YOUR QUESTION. WE ARE IN A CARBON-SAVING TURBOPROP — I CANNOT HEAR YOU!
AGW is private morality being forced on the populace through public policy. Need to change it to separation of some churches and state.
If Al Gore takes personal steps to curtail carbon, it may induce the people of California, the U.S., and in turn China and India to reduce carbon emissions.
Do you really believe that? Al Gore buys carbon offsets; has that induced the rest of the U.S. population to do so?
I remember an old hippy bumper sticker that read “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” In the real world you don’t fund either schools or the military with bake sales, and you don’t change national carbon emissions by setting an admirable personal example. Conservatives/rightists of all people know the power of market signals. If you can burn carbon without paying for the emissions you’re going to burn more than if the emissions had a price. We don’t need self-denial or martyrdom, just rational economic behavior.
There’s nothing hypocritical about riding in private jets and believing that the government should tax or otherwise put a price on carbon emissions. Climate change is an issue of public policy, not private morality.
Gore is a perfect example of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” As I said, the fact you can’t understand that tells me how removed you are from reality.
I pay the same prices as anyone else with my insurance policy, and I pay the same price for my insurance as any other non-smoker my age in my state. What are you talking about?
You pay less because many of us pay more or have lost their insurance. You’ve been told this many times and yet you continue to believe your own nonsense.
How are millions of illegals (sic) getting free health care?
Because they are required to receive treatment in hospitals, regardless of having insurance or not. And yes, I’ll continue to use “illegals” as a noun.
By the way, how is that “30 million uninsured” cure working out for you?
Gore is a perfect example of, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
If he is a “perfect example” then show me a case of him telling people to refrain from flying in private jets, or riding in SUVs. The fact that you can’t come up with one suggests that he does not, in fact, tell people to do as he says and not as he does. What he actually tells people to do is to support putting a price on carbon; that’s also what he does.
You pay less because many of us pay more or have lost their insurance.
If you live in my state, are my age, and don’t smoke, you can buy the exact policy I have for the very same price. How is that making you pay more?
Because they are required to receive treatment in hospitals, regardless of having insurance or not.
That was a law that Reagan signed, right? Do you think we should repeal it?
And yes, I’ll continue to use “illegals” as a noun.
For anyone who’s ever broken a law, or just for people who are in the country illegally?
By the way, how is that “30 million uninsured” cure working out for you?
Great! It looks like there are 16 million more people with coverage than in 2013, which is a huge improvement in just two years. We’ll get over 20 million, especially if more states expand Medicaid.
If he is a “perfect example” then show me a case of him telling people to refrain from flying in private jets, or riding in SUVs. The fact that you can’t come up with one suggests that he does not, in fact, tell people to do as he says and not as he does. What he actually tells people to do is to support putting a price on carbon; that’s also what he does.
It’s called leading by example. If you don’t understand this tiny bit of leadership skill, then you are thicker than I thought. Al Gore blames carbon for global warming, yet he contributes to it with his jet and his electricity use for his house. He is a hypocrite. How can you not understand this?
If you live in my state, are my age, and don’t smoke, you can buy the exact policy I have for the very same price. How is that making you pay more?
Because it is more than what I used to pay. But then, you did tell me that I paid too little. Because, you’re like, omniscient and know all of the millions of variables that go into the price of health insurance.
I take that back. You pay less and I pay more because you’re greedy.
Great! It looks like there are 16 million more people with coverage than in 2013, which is a huge improvement in just two years. We’ll get over 20 million, especially if more states expand Medicaid.
Hah! Utopia is just around the corner!!!! Yep, and Chavez brought Utopia to Venezuala, too!
Don’t give me that, “Oh, just wait a little longer.” spiel because it is a lie. You’ve lied, Obama lied, Pelosi and Reid lied.
You are a liar. You promised 30 million and you’re not there.
Quoting from Al Gore’s Nobel acceptance speech
“So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.’
So what you are saying is that Al Gore’s program is that can continue to “dump into an open sewer” if we paid fees for the privilege? That it is OK to dump what is described as generation-damaging pollution if we pay the dumping fee?
The rich, the elites, the aristocrats have since the founding of the Middle Eastern city states reserved themselves a comfortable lifestyle based on the labor of others and the consumption of natural resources.
Part of the political issue is that the enviro-wing of the Democratic party, represented here and elsewhere, has real issues that some union guy in Michigan has the resources to live in a house in the burbs, have a cabin further upstate or maybe across the Ambassador Bridge in Canada, and have an SUV to tow his boat up to that lake near the cabin. Some Republican-Conservative-Libertarians, around here, have a problem with that guy being in a union.
That an ordinary Joe enjoys amenities — a rich diet, automotive transportation, hydrocarbon-based recreation, uncrowded living, central heat and A/C — is a consequence of hydrocarbon fuel use. And there is no moral judgment of this or of Joe — that some modest taxes on carbon are going to nudge the economy and Joe’s lifestyle in the direction of lower carbon intensity, aided by technology that is “right around the corner but just need to be adopted?”
I have no problem with Joe being in a union, Paul, as long as the union doesn’t bankrupt the company that Joe works for. In fact, I’m even good with that, as long as the company actually goes bankrupt in a bankruptcy court, and isn’t propped up with my tax dollars, and then handed over to the union.
It’s called leading by example.
Gore does lead by example. Reductions in carbon emissions will only come from regulations, laws, and new technology. He lobbies for the regulations and laws, and invests in the technology. I assume he votes for politicians who support putting a price on carbon, which is exactly what he tells everyone else to do. Gore’s climate prescription isn’t “if you believe what I’m saying about the dangers of climate change cut your personal emissions”. That would be ridiculously ineffective. His prescription is “if you believe what I’m saying about the dangers of climate change get your leaders to enact policies that will lower our national and global emissions.”
You pay less and I pay more because you’re greedy.
It’s greedy of me to pay the same as anyone else my age? Really?
You promised 30 million and you’re not there.
Talk about moving the goalposts! Show me where I or anyone else predicted 30 million by 2015, with optional Medicaid expansion.
So what you are saying is that Al Gore’s program is that can continue to “dump into an open sewer” if we paid fees for the privilege?
Yes. Solving the problem isn’t about making a moral judgment, it’s about reducing the amount of dumping. Putting a price on emissions lets us gradually reduce the dumping in an economically efficient manner.
“Putting a price on emissions lets us gradually reduce the dumping in an economically efficient manner.”
Yes, like the fat-cats in London who supported the ‘congestion charge’ because it would push more poor people out of their cars and allow rich bankers to get to work faster in their Porsche.
I thought you were a leftie, Jim?
So why do you support forcing the poor and working class to pay more for all the energy they use? Why do you support putting working-class coal miners out of work? All because of a fairy story that’s made Algore rich enough that he doesn’t have to give a damn about the cost of fuel for his private jet?
I actually remember a time when the left were in favor of improving the lives of the working class, not destroying them. But, I guess, working class voters stopped voting Democrat once their standard of living gave them something to lose.
Gore’s climate prescription isn’t “if you believe what I’m saying about the dangers of climate change cut your personal emissions”
“Find out how much CO2 your lifestyle produces and the amount of resources it takes to live the way you do. Once you know the impact your lifestyle causes you can start to make adjustments and monitor improvement.”
You are once again, correct, in the face of many of us being quite wrong. A person is never an “illegal”; that is a incorrect grammar.
A person who breaks immigration law along with a whole bunch of other laws is properly called “a criminal.”
Thanks, once more, for setting the record straight.
Unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a crime, it’s a civil violation. So merely being here illegally does not make one a criminal.
You are once again correct. It probably depends on what other laws one has to break to maintain one’s status.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html
I guess you are going to scold me that I messed up — I trusted you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-glKGjp50Ug
I pledge, that when elected as the nation’s first Croatian Austro-Hungarian-Serbian American President, I will replace Air Force One with a Lockheed P-3 Orion turboprop. Or a late-model C-130 with the really cool prop-fan blades. For the children. And grandchildren and all future generations.
And when I set forth in that noisy prop-job, I will have com-links to the awesome military might of this great nation, so when I speak on Climate Change, I do so with the full faith and backing of the United States. And should anyone dare to criticize me, I won’t listen to them let alone hear what they are saying. Because I will be riding at Mach .6 with four propellers turning and making a lot of noise and vibration.
“‘My name is Paulmilenkovic, Leader of the Free World:
Look upon my El-one-eighty-eight, ye Mighty, and despair
Angie’s jet:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/intruder-volkan-was-asleep-in-merkel-bed-on-government-jet-a-918792.html
Woo-hoo, a fuel-saving A-320 twin with the V-2500 engines.
I guess the British Prime Minister beat me to the 4-engine turboprop with the really cool prop-fans idea. Would the Secret Service allow me to take a turn at the controls? And wouldn’t it be fantastic to have members of the press sit “deployment style” for 14 hours on their “gear” back in the cargo bay?
http://asian-defence-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/british-prime-minister-david-cameron.html
Geez, Louise, Hollande flies a Falcon (bien sur!) biz-jet. That along with 80% nuclear electric power gives a world leader a lot of Carbon Street Cred
http://www.rt.com/news/hollande-plane-lightning-strike-312/
And as for the American President’s shameful conduct flying around in a 747 . . .
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/japanese-prime-minister-shinzo-abes-plane-arrives-at-news-photo/451790686
. . . never mind!
“You must not read the New York Times, a generally sensible newspaper that loses its mind whenever it writes about the Clintons (most recently running, and then quickly correcting, a story falsely claiming that Clinton had been referred for criminal investigation).”
Why do you even bother saying such stupid stuff?