Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Question-Dodging Response to the Private Email Scandal

Clinton's behavior shows that her only priority is herself.

|

@HillaryClinton/Twitter

Yesterday, a photographer for the celebrity gossip site TMZ became the first reporter to ask Hillary Clinton on camera about her unusual, exclusive use of a personal, privately run email address while serving as Secretary of State. The photog bungled the wording of the question, asking, "With the blunder of the emails, was that just a generalization gap or can that be corrected?" Clinton just walked by.

It wouldn't have mattered if the question was worded a little bit better, though. Clinton has no plans to answer questions about the emails any time soon.

According to a Bloomberg Politics report by Jennifer Epstein, Clinton's plan is to avoid any in-depth discussion of the scandal for the time being, and instead refer questions to State, and to a Tweet from Wednesday night, in which she said, "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."

The tweet itself was artfully disingenuous: Why run email through a privately controlled system except to hide your communications from the public? And while it's true that the Department of State is now reviewing thousands of pages of her emails for possible public disclosure, the review only covers emails that Clinton aides hand-picked and turned over. She's already edited the archive. She demonstrably does not want the public to see the rest. 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of questions Clinton should be answering.

For example: How does she square her use of private email with State Department policy directing that work be conducted on an authorized, secure email system? As Politico reports, since 2005 the State Department has had a "clear cut" policy in its Foreign Affairs Manual that "general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information."

A representative from State told Politico that the policy only applies to the transmission of sensitive information. That doesn't put Clinton in the clear, though. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Wednesday that "there is a substantial amount of sensitive information that is included in her email."

Proper email use wasn't laughed off during Clinton's time at State: In 2012, an Ambassador to Kenya was pushed out in part for using his personal Gmail account, unconnected to the official State Department email system. Why was it okay for her to do the same thing? (Other documents indicate that under Clinton, State employees were specifically instructed not to use private emails.) 

And then there are the security risks. The agency policy stresses the importance of maintaining secure communications, but Clinton's use of a homebrew email system raises serious questions about how secure it really was.

For Democrats, meanwhile, the story should raise other questions about the individual who is, despite not having officially announced a campaign, the party's presumptive 2016 presidential nominee. Clinton's team has reportedly known about the issue since at least last August, according to Politico. And yet not only did she choose to let it sit until after the mid-term election, almost certainly making it a bigger issue in the run-up to her expected campaign, she seems to have given Democratic allies no warning or way to respond

The story, and the way it has rolled out, illustrates the risks of an all-in bet on a single candidate. And it's revealing about how Hillary Clinton operates: She wasn't concerned about the security of high-value communications in the administration she worked for; she wasn't concerned about the policies and procedures of the department she oversaw; and she wasn't concerned about the political preparedness of the rest of her party when the scandal broke. Instead, she was concerned about herself.

Given Clinton's history of secrecy and distrust of public scrutiny, it seems more than likely that her primary goal in setting up and relying exclusively on the private email setup was to create an email system that gave her a high level of control over what messages could ever be revealed to the public. That she is now refusing to answer difficult but pertinent questions about her unusual email system is really no surprise: The system itself was created to help her avoid answering uncomfortable questions in the first place.  

Advertisement

NEXT: Ted Cruz's Cannabis Conversion Reflects the Political Prudence of Marijuana Federalism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is there any truth to the rumor that Clinton has retained SugarFree to write the emails that she is submitting to the State Dept for review?

    1. I am pretty sure even Hillary isn’t evil enough to do that to Congress.

      1. She’s evil enough, she’s just not awesome enough. Because that would be awesome.

      2. I happen to know that the reason her e-mail server was in her basement was because she was co-authoring SF’s series of politician sex vignettes.

        1. Co-authoring… or helping him conduct “research?”

          1. Why yes, i DID throw up a little bit when considering the implications of what i just wrote.

            1. Only a little? I just lost my lunch.

          2. To each their own, but I will never understand GILFs.
            *resumes choking self with belt*

            1. You will when you’re older.

          3. Fortunately, my knowledge is limited to the basic fact. I drafted the agreement between the two of them. Clinton was surprisingly reasonable in the negotiations, except for insisting that she be addressed as Twatmistress Supreme by SF in all dealings. As a contractual matter.

            1. I hear they have you address them by absurd names to make sure you are paying attention to the rest of the contract. I-ANAL. Also I’m not a lawyer.

              1. Why people don’t say IANAA instead is beyond me. I think there’s something psychological going on there.

                1. ANAL ANAL ANAL *summons Warty*

                2. I’m good with either.

    2. No comment.

      1. Aha! Just as we figured. Another question dodger!

        So he IS in league with the Wicked Witch of Westchester!

  2. What’s great about this scandal for those of us who want government officials to get in trouble for wrongdoing (at least to the extent of not being government officials) is that there is no legitimate purpose for what she did, no possible claim that she didn’t know any better, and no question that it was an intentional act. It’s beautiful in its perfection–Clinton is to be credited.

    1. True. There is no claiming “I accidentally hired a consultant to set up a private email system for my official business. I mean, people make mistakes, click the wrong button, you know.”

      1. So, what’s the penalty for committing this offense, anyway? No question of having enough evidence to convict.

        1. For one of the Rulers? Nothing. For one of the lesser mortals I imagine it would be quite serious.

          1. I just meant on paper. I’m under no illusions about whether she’ll actually be prosecuted. Far “lesser” people than her have merely been dismissed for doing such things.

            America has an aristocracy of idiots.

            1. A Clowder of Cats
              A Murder of Crows
              An Aristocracy of Idiots

            2. Pro L, here are the penalties.

              Criminal penalties are provided for the willful and unlawful destruction, removal, or private use of Federal records.
              Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records (18 U.S.C. ? 2071)

              Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
              Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
              As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

              1. Very well then. No office, and maybe some time, which she’d never serve, of course. And that’s just on the records side, not addressing the breach of national security she committed.

                Yet we’re going to watch the press and many Democrats circle the wagons around her. We’re that far gone.

                1. It would be great if she got punished for this.

                  But I don’t a law like this could disqualify a person for elected office. It seems to me that the constitution clearly spells out the qualifications for office and it says nothing about not being a criminal. If it is constitutional, it seems like a really bad idea anyway. All you would have to do to eliminate the opposition is to pass some law that criminalizes them and disqualifies them from holding office.

                  1. Block them all. Sounds like a good idea. Let’s criminalize citizenship.

                    1. Well, that all assumes that representative democracy is a good thing.

                      And it’s one of those things that seems great until your enemies are in power.

                    2. I think limited government with representative democracy is a necessary evil. Everything beyond that is an unnecessary and greater evil.

                    3. I’d say “at best a necesary evil”, but otherwise, I agree.

                    4. necessary? maybe.

                      evil? definitely.

              2. such record? Singular? That means she’s eligible for punishment about 55 thousand times at least.

              3. Clinton can easily argue that she did not conceal, remove, etc., any record, proceeding, etc., filed or deposited with any official. One can say that the emails ought to have been filed, etc., but if so that would be a different law.

            3. America has an aristocracy of idiots.

              America has an aristocracy of swine.

        2. what’s the penalty for committing this offense, anyway?

          She will have to avoid questions and repeat “I don’t remember” or “Not to my recollection” for several months and then say “That’s old news”

          1. I’m fully prepared to have reality slap me in the face again, but that would seem difficult to do here. I mean, it’s not like there’s a believable argument that what she did was innocent or legal.

            1. “I accidentally purchased a server, put it my home, and created my own domain. But I am too tech ignorant to understand how email works…”

              1. She needed Lerner to help her (almost) delete the emails.

            2. Not innocent, but probably legal. If it turns out to be illegal, HRC can have someone come forward and fall on his sword.

      2. In 2007 she commented on tape about Bush WH having “secret emails.”

        So, there is audio.

        1. Hers weren’t secret. She knew all about them.

      3. She accidentally bought a domain name, accidentally bought DNS services, accidentally set up a mail server or procured a cloud-based mail service, accidentally bought MxLogic service, accidentally configured MxLogic to point to her mail server, accidentally added users to her mail server and to MxLogic, and accidentally configured DNS MX records to point to MxLogic.

        A lot of accidents had to have taken place there!

        1. It’s as if she has a secretary named Rosemary Woods.

          1. Isn’t it amazing what you can do with your toes these days?

            -jcr

        2. What, doesn’t everyone have a private email server at home? Hmm…maybe Best Buy was just trying to sell me stuff. Stupid Geeks…

      4. “There is no claiming “I accidentally hired a consultant to set up a private email system for my official business…. …which i put into place prior to taking office and set up specifically to avoid federal record-keeping and disclosure requirements.”

        Yeah, except go read the comments on any NYT piece about this subject.

        The knee-jerk lefties are all claiming that this is an “invasion of privacy” issue, and Clinton deserved to have ‘some stuff’ kept from the evul rethuglican subpoena-monsters. The idea that senior government officials are subject to federal oversight is something they’ve never heard of. There is also the predictable refrain of “BUT BOOOOSH??” echoing through the blogosphere….

        1. These would be the same idiots who cheered when Sarah Palin’s private email account was hacked and the emails made public. The same idiots who combed through thousands of private correspondence in search of the “truth” and “proof”.

    2. And still the proggies defend her. It’s actually quite fascinating, in a sickening kind of way.

    3. I assume the state department has their own email service. I work for a group of about 200 people and we have our own email domain. So not using the state’s email and using your own is clearly intentional. I don’t know how she slimes out of this other than the “FYTW” defense.

      1. Needs moar refresh!

      2. I believe they operate under “state.gov” or something like that. I recall seeing DoS domains when I was a fellow at the Clinton White House. Where, incidentally, I had an EOP e-mail domain, and I’m pretty sure even back then they told me not to conduct official business under my law school or personal accounts.

      3. I don’t know how she slimes out of this other than the “FYTW” defense.

        “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

        1. Always popular.

        2. “It’s the vast, right wing conspiracy.”

    4. No there is not. It was in the handbook, everyone in government knows you can’t do that, and other people have gotten in trouble for doing it. She has no defense.

      1. Lisa Jackson aka Richard Winsor head of the EPA had an outside email using a fake name.

        She left the EPA and was hired by Apple.

        So apparently it wasn’t that big a deal.

        Why would Apple hire someone who did that?

        1. Two things, first, she had an official email account as well. Second, Lisa Jackson is a criminal who engaged in unlawful collusion with environmental groups. She should be in jail. She is not there only because she was doing Obama’s bidding and DOJ is never going to prosecute for that.

          As for Apple, they hired her for her influence with the President. The fact that she is a criminal doesn’t matter.

          1. As for Apple, they hired her for her influence with the President. The fact that she too is a criminal doesn’t matter.

        2. Why would Apple hire someone who is politically connected? Gee, can’t think of any reason…..

        3. “Why would Apple hire someone who did that?’

          Paybacks

          Access

          Influence

          or any combination of the three

    5. What’s great about this scandal for those of us who want government officials to get in trouble for wrongdoing (at least to the extent of not being government officials)

      Unfortunately I highly doubt that there will be any long term repercussions for her, not even to the extent of not being a government official.

    6. It’s also a cut and dry case of illegal activity. But she’ll never be punished for it, in fact she’ll be rewarded by her donors and voters with their unconditional support. Democrat cultists.

    7. AND we get to watch the Media lapdogs shuck-and-jive their way out of crucifying her. Priceless! I’m makimg popcorn.

  3. Sounds like a Hillary Clinton administration would be the “even more transparentest administration in history!” But hey, that’s fine, because war on womyn or something.

    1. Kind of surprised this hasn’t already been painted as Republican persecution of Hillary because War on Womyns!

      1. That will come next.

      2. This one is too obvious. I think they will just stick with “it’s not really a big deal”.

  4. There is no answer she can give beyond, fuck off. She refused to even get an official email. This is not doing a little official work on a private account or some private work on an official account. This is not even having an official account. I don’t care how many emails she turns over. There is no way to tell what she doesn’t turn over.

    1. There is no way to tell what she doesn’t turn over.

      Which is of course the entire point.

      1. Of course. But that means the rest of us are free to assume she is a crook.

        1. Yeah, knowing she’s a crook and proving she’s a crook are two different things, and she’s damn sure going to hide the proof as best she can.

          1. WTF would be the point of proving it? No one is going to do anything about it and she isn’t going to suffer any real consequences, legal or otherwise.

    2. She has conspicuously avoided claiming that the 55k “pages” of email sent to State was *all* of the email. I suspect she’s been advised that it takes two computers to transmit an email: a sender and a receiver. There are very likely hundreds of upstream email servers with timestamped records of successful delivery of emails to her server. If she were to claim that they were all turned over that could be easily audited. Generally the content of those emails shouldn’t be available upstream but the metedata very likely is in many cases.

    3. Exactly. Instead of using an email system that was provided for her to use (and heck, the SecState probably doesn’t even have to go to the bother of setting up his/her own account and whatnot; probably done for them by an office lackey) she goes out of her way to set up her own special private system. How can that be anything other than a conscious act? And it’s perfectly legit to ask her why she went to the trouble.

      1. You could easily go to a jury with a presumption against the custodian/defendant for anything that was missing. I mean, just think about what’s going against her here–the very act of maintaining the server was illegal, likely in multiple ways, and the obvious reason is to control what e-mails and attachments were exposed to public records laws.

    4. There is no way to tell what she doesn’t turn over.

      We can the NSA or FSB for the missing emails?

      More seriously, MxLogic is a mail bagging service and they might copies. A subpoena to them might produce results.

    5. Here’s how she does it:

      1 – talk to nothing but friendly reporters and questioners

      2 – say nothing about it in her speeches

      3 – when she is finally cornered in live debate, say: “I apologize for straying a little bit outside the strict letter of the rules [embarrassed chuckle]. It was all with the best of intentions, but I’ve l learned my lesson about how closely people watch you and expect perfection.”

      Done. She has apologized, explained, and preempted further inquiry by calling her critics pretty.

      This is pretty much how the sniper fire story went.

      1. Petty

  5. The TMZ reporter should have asked “Is this email thing another vast right-wing conspiracy?”

    1. The vast conspiracy set up a email server in her basement and forced her to use it!!

      1. They really are nefarious. And also, Fake. Scandal.

      2. That’s a good point. Maybe the IRS shenanigans came from Hillary@venal.com.

    2. From Anne Althouse:

      Hillary did her senior year, closing out the requirements for her degree from Wellesley by completing her senior honors thesis in political science: “‘There Is Only the Fight…’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” Did that bring her any deeper understanding of scientific topics like evolution and fetal development and climate change?

      Here’s a special science question for Hillary: When you did your “Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” were you engaged in a scientific study? And I have some non-scientific follow-ups: Would Alinsky have considered your study of him scientific? How would a follower of the Alinsky Model frame questions about science to be asked of politicians? Is your answer to this question the answer of someone following the Alinsky Model? If it were, would it even be possible to answer “yes”?

      That last question is a science question if logic is science.

      http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..hould.html

      1. Ann (not Anne)

  6. Is it even plausible that it WASN’T hacked?

    Wouldn’t Clinton have been emailing foreign leaders and other dignitaries?
    And if it was obvious to everyone that she was using a personal email account inside the US government, how long could they have kept it a secret from foreigners.

    This was discovered by a Romanian hacker in 2013. What are the chances that Russian or Chinese hackers didn’t know about it? And if they knew about it, what are the chances that they wouldn’t target her server?

    1. No it is not. Everyone who got an email from her knew she was using it. So, there is no doubt the Russians and the Chinese and Iranians and everyone else knew. It is absolutely certain that the account was hacked and probably hacked by multiple parties.

      1. Yes, I mean, they would have to be completely retarded to notice that she was using a personal email address and then NOT have it occur to them that they could assign an intelligence operative to hack the account. Right?

        The only question is whether it would have been possible to hide the fact that she was using a personal email from foreign governments. For four years.

        I bet Putin is having a laugh right now, and playing with his Overcharge button.

        1. The other question is everyone in DOS had to have known about this. How slack was the congressional and media oversight for this never to have come out until now?

          1. Or why didn’t her boss, Obama, tell her at a cabinet meeting to get an official email account and start using it?

            You think some of those DOS IT folk should have gone to him to tell him about this too.

            1. Obama didn’t know until he read it in the paper.

        2. Most of the time when email is hacked, it’s because the person didn’t use a strong password or because they fell victim to some phishing scam. Otherwise, with good firewalls, strong passwords, and knowledge of phishing tactics, it’s damn near impossible to hack into a server.

          1. I would be shocked if the Clinton Foundation had that good of IT. They are totally arrogant and incompetent at everything else, why would this be any different?

            1. They could have contracted it out to someone competent.

              My only point is that if done right, a home server can be just as secure as anything else.

              1. They could have for sure. I just bet they didn’t.

              2. Clinton’s E-Mail Built for Privacy Though Not Security

                A week before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton set up a private e-mail system that gave her a high level of control over communications, including the ability to erase messages completely, according to security experts who have examined Internet records.

                “You erase it and everything’s gone,” Matt Devost, a security expert who has had his own private e-mail for years. Commercial services like those from Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. retain copies even after users erase them from their in-box.

                Although Clinton worked hard to secure the private system, her consultants appear to have set it up with a misconfigured encryption system, something that left it vulnerable to hacking, said Alex McGeorge, head of threat intelligence at Immunity Inc., a Miami Beach-based digital security firm.

                1. Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use

                  The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.

                  “We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”

                  Yeah, she was probably hacked.

                2. Except that Exchange doesn’t wipe the datastore space from delete emails… it marks them as unused until the next backup and after that it starts overwriting free space.

              3. I think you might be able to set up a fairly secure instance of an email server, but where you fall down is ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

                With the government, you know you have the staff and the resources to be constantly monitoring the firewall and checking for intrusion attempts. Do you think Hillary spent top $$ to have her server administered to this degree?

                Right now, the burden of proof should be on her. She should be forced to divulge all the details of the server, who set it up, who monitored it, etc.

                Of course no one will push her for it.

                1. I’d like to see the auth.log files. That would be fun.

                  Of course almost by default, those roll over and might get periodically dumped, depending on settings.

          2. Still, we would want to examine the server to determine if it was hacked on not, right?
            Why havn’t we heard from anyone at state to verify whether she used proper firewalls? Is she was going to maintain a personal email with the Department’s blessing then she ought to have been working with State Department IT people to secure it. They should have been monitoring it regularly.

            If not, then the government has a compelling interest in getting a look at that server, just to know how exposed or not it was.

            1. I wonder if Edward Snowden has any unreleased information about her emails.

              1. Ironically given Snowden and the general ineptness of the American intel system, Hillary may have one of the few secure e-mail systems in the American government.

          3. We’re talking about nation states here, not casual criminals.

          4. Most of the time when email is hacked, it’s because the person didn’t use a strong password or because they fell victim to some phishing scam.

            Somehow I doubt that grandma Clinton was intelligent enough to use a strong password, or not fall victim to a phishing scam. Her password is probably something like “madampresident2016” or some shit.

            1. password1234

              1. ‘Monicasucks’

                1. That’s Bill’s password.

                  1. thedresswasblue

              2. 1-2-3-4. Hey that’s my password.

          5. We already know it was hacked in 2013.

            Chances are that wasn’t the first time, or the last.

            No doubt the hacker that we know about copied the entire contents of the server and sold it.

          6. You have no fucking clue what youre talking about.

    2. Is it even plausible that it WASN’T hacked?

      Yes. If it was setup and administered properly with firewalls, strong passwords, and such, then it could be as hack-proof as a government server.

      1. I’d be interested to know if she was getting IT help administering it from the State Department.

      2. If it was setup and administered properly

        So we can only hope that she hired competent staff to build a private server system to explicitly thwart government accounting rules while keeping the best intelligence agencies in the world from hacking into her system.

        1. On the other hand, given her level of paranoia and secrecy, I’m sort of inclined to think she would have found the most paranoid basement dwelling hacker she could locate to make sure her emails were secure, even from the NSA.

          1. I fully expect that:

            — Her security was flawed and she was hacked by foreign nationals

            — She possessed and distributed state secrets through a hacked, private email system

            — She violated ITAR on many occasions

            — Not a god damn thing will happen to her

            1. ITAR violations and disclosure of classified information are almost certainties. You or I do that, we get sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for hundreds of years.

            2. Conspiracy of the day –

              Terrorist organizations hacked (or bought) information about Steven’s gun running in Benghazi, that was obtained by hacking HRC’s private email.

              So her paranoia and sloppiness cost Stevens and others their lives.

              1. Even better. The Russian’s hacked her account and found out about Bill’s trips to the sex island, and are currently blackmailing both of them. Which is how they knew they could get away with annexing Crimea, and invading the Ukraine.

                Don’t you think it’s suspicious that Russians seem to know exactly where the line is and are inching right up to it?

                1. I think it was pretty clear we weren’t going to war with Russia over Crimea, even without hacked emails.

          2. The paranoia is what is breath taking.

            If she had simply gotten an official email account, she could have avoided this entire fiasco. All she had to do was make sure to route the mundane emails through the official account and everyone would have assumed she was following the rules.

            Nothing would have stopped her from using the private account to send the Saudis a dunning notice.

            But no…. she is so paranoid, she couldn’t even let herself use an official account to send standard messages because she was sure they’d bite her in the ass somehow.

            1. Yes, this.

              Three possibilities here:
              1. She is too lazy to separate her dirty laundry from her regular business, because it’s just too much of a pain in the ass to have to check two email accounts.

              2. The line between the dirty laundry and the regular business is so blurry she can’t remember which account to use.

              3. She’s so paranoid she’s afraid even her regular business is going to bite her in the ass somehow.

              1. 4) She was correctly worried that the counterparties to her corrupt acts would screw up and respond to it on her official email.

                1. Good point.

        2. On the other hand, given her level of paranoia and secrecy, I’m sort of inclined to think she would have found the most paranoid basement dwelling hacker she could locate to make sure her emails were secure, even from the NSA.

      3. Don’t forget about physical access to the server. There’s no way her server was anywhere close to as physically secure as the one at State. If you have physical access to the server hacking it is stupid simple.

        1. The server is at an Internap facility. She has a /28.

          Just 2 minutes to find that out. 😀

          1. That’s even worse than if it was in her basement.
            Which one do you think is harder to slip an agent into ?
            Her house is guarded by secret service personell.

            1. I’ve been to Internap in LA?

              I propped my feet up on Facebook’s server rack while I worked on someone else’s servers.

              1. Well, shit, her server probably has stuxnet on it by this time.

      4. Here’s what she had:
        FortiGate with default cert and VPN
        OWA, so AD domain and MS Exchange

        1. OWA sucks balls.

          AD is a bitch to maintain.

      5. It for certain got hacked at least once. The only reason we know about this is because some Romanian dude hacked the account.

  7. So Hillary used her personal, unsecured email to do State Department business. What difference, at this point, does it make? You didn’t complain when Colin Powell did it, did you? The only reason you’re writing all of this hateful, sexist crap about Hillary is because you’re a bunch of misogynist, cis-lord scumbags who aren’t man enough to accept the inevitability of a female President!

    Hilary 2016!

    /feminist

    1. “Hillary is the most qualified to be the next President! Because VAGINA!”

        1. That’s “hetero cis shitlord scum”! And everyone knows women are smarter, that’s why the majority of scientific and technological advances have been made by womyns!!

        2. Women are more collectivist so good. Men focus more on the individual so bad. Pretty bullet proof if you ask me.

      1. “Hillary is the most qualified to be the next President! Because VAGINA!”

        You cis-het oppressor, don’t you know that some women don’t have vaginas??

        1. So, Bruce Jenner for President?

  8. And while it’s true that the Department of State is now reviewing thousands of pages of her emails for possible public disclosure, the review only covers emails that Clinton aides hand-picked and turned over. She’s already edited the archive. She demonstrably does not want the public to see the rest.

    From the link: “Likely to take months”

    How much do you spose this is going to cost in terms of State Dept. personnel time and salaries?

    1. As long and as much as want to.

  9. According to Drudge, Al Gore and Martin O’Mally are warming up in the wings. So either the Democrats get a possibly fatally compromised Hillary or one of those two. This is not a good thing for them.

    1. ManBearPig is real! I’m totally cereal!

      1. ManBearPig is real!

        Maybe the Dems can get him to run for president.

        1. If he’s still XXXXL like Haley Joel Osment I doubt he will be doing any running.

    2. O’mally is such a joke that he was succeeded by a republican. IN MARYLAND.

      1. While mayor of Baltimore O’Malley allowed a family of seven to be murdered after complaining about the open air drug market in their neighborhood.

    3. So hooray for President Christie?

      1. If the fat bastard had any sense, he would run as a Democrat. He might win the nomination. He would at least have a chance, which is more than he has of winning the GOP one.

    4. I would cream my pants in delight if Elizabeth Warren ran. The fact that everyone I know that is a self-described liberal thinks she is the tits is hilarious. She is the perfect McgGovern to BO’s Jimmy Carter.

      1. I know. I don’t think my prog friends understand that everyone who is not a Democrat wants Warren to be nominated.

        But then, I thought Obama would be easier to beat in 2008 than Hillary.

    5. So nobody like Biden? I thought the VP sort of automatically got the nomination after a two term president. Cheney is the only exception I can think of and he didn’t want it.

      1. There is some noise about Biden, but I think he’s a joke even to most Democrats.

        1. He is a bit of a joke. But Hillary and Elizabeth Warren aren’t? I’d take Joe over either of them in a second. At least he’d be amusing rather than constantly sickening.

    6. Yikes.

      Gore scares me. Because I think he’d win.

      1. No way.

        In 2008, maybe.

        But no fucking way in 2016.

    7. so, what do her primary opponents say about this email mess? It will come up in debate.

  10. If a peasant had done this they would have been charged with a crime and had the servers confiscated before the evidence could be destroyed. It’s nice to be a noble.

  11. my buddy’s half-sister makes $84 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her check was $12581 just working on the computer for a few hours. check this site out…..

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  12. Clinton’s use of a homebrew email system raises serious questions about how secure it really was.

    I’m really going to enjoy it when/ if someone hacks her email system and leaks the entire contents. I’m already popping popcorn in anticipation.

    1. The love letters between her and Huma.

      1. Huma Weiner. uh huh huh huh huh huh huh

  13. Has this server been shut down? Has a warrant been issued to obtain the server(s). And, pssst… I hear the Clintons have some pot in their house.

    1. How are people not sick of these scumbags? I mean, okay, yay TEAM and all, but seriously, there’s no one else?

    2. The domain is still registered to Clinton.

      I have not seen anything in the press that says whether or not it is still online.

      1. Send an email and see if it bounces back.

        1. I triple-dog dare you!

        2. If done properly, they could have the domain transferred and emails forwarded to Hillary’s proper DoS email address. That’s the way I would do it, so that communications aren’t disrupted.

  14. OT: happy news from New Jersey. Sen. Robert Menendez about to be charged with corruption by Feds.

    Nice. Go up in flames, fucker.

    1. No way. Not that he doesn’t deserve it, but funny how they decided to charge him after he went after Obama on the Iran thing.

      1. That’s what I first thought of as well. But surely even these people aren’t that craven.

        1. he’s still on their team afterall.

          1. Team only works one way with this administration. Maybe with any administration, but definitely with this one.

        2. Him being on their team makes it more likely. The only people who can hurt Obama now are Democrats since the media will just ignore any attack from a Republican no matter how valid it is. So, they have a real interest in making an example of any Democrat who attacks them.

          1. Either way it’s good to see that sick pedophile get his comeuppance.

        3. But surely even these people aren’t that craven.

          HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!11!!! *inhales sharply* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!111!!!!!!!

      2. It’s been in the works for a long time.

        It’s a given that if you’re a Jersey politician, you’ve engaged in some heinous corruption because that’s only way to become a politician in Jersey.

        1. I hated that American hustle movie. Everybody was a scumbag, so I had no one to root for.

          1. Not even Amy Adam’s tits?

            1. Ugh. I bet you rooted for Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, didn’t you.

              1. He probably rooted for Longshanks in Braveheart, too.

                1. Longshank did bring back prima nocte, soooooo….

                  1. The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots.

                    So true.

              2. He created so many jobs!!!

            2. Adam Adam’s is cute, but she couldn’t save that movie.

              1. Amy Adams. Sheesh.

                1. Freaudian slip maybe ?

                  latent tendancies coming to the forefront.

                  not that there is anything wrong with that.

              2. Florida Man jumps out of the closet!

                Gays everywhere pray for him to jump back in.

          2. Jeremy Renner was supposed to be a good guy. I mean the character he was based on was a typical NJ scumbag, but in the movie he was supposed to be good.

            Then again he was kind of a supporting character.

            Louis CK? J Law’s bosoms?

            1. I know what the movie wanted but he was a dirt bag. “I even put my son in charge of the casino because I’m a stand up guy.” No! You’re a dirt bag.

          3. I hated that American hustle movie. Everybody was a scumbag, so I had no one to root for.

            #nogoodguys

          4. What? I was totally rooting for the con-artists, of course.
            That was the whole fun of the thing.

            1. I was totally rooting for the con-artists,

              Which ones, the private sector conmen or the fbi con man?

              1. The private-sector ones , DUH.

    2. wow how did that take so long?

  15. This is a great scandal. Everyone is talking about this and not the revelation that she and the rest of the State Dept. knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack within minutes (and a bunch of people perjured themselves before Congress) or the fact that foreign governments were funneling money to the Clinton Foundation.

    So let’s talk about an ethics violation that won’t come to anything, and not the crimes she and a few others should be going to jail for. And this will be “old news” by the election.

    Hillary played this one to perfection.

    1. or the fact that foreign governments were funneling money to the Clinton Foundation.

      Seriously how is that not a bigger deal?

      1. Because LOOK! SQUIRREL!!

      2. Seriously how is that not a bigger deal?

        Because VAJAY-JAY!!!11!!!!

      3. The rebuttal there is that it wasn’t directly into the Clintons’ pockets, because there are other people at the foundation, so it’s like, totally cool and on the level and stuff.

    2. She played it to perfection in the same way an animal escapes a trap by chewing its leg off.

      1. She can always grow another leg.

        1. She was born with eight.

          1. Now you’re making me want to re-watch Kiss of the Spider Woman.

          2. She’s an octoweasel?

            1. Wouldn’t an octoweasel have 32 legs?

            2. “And why do you get to be in charge? As I recall, you were the only one who ran from the octo-chicken.”

              “Well, it freaked me out when it came down from its web.”

              1. “I’m different than other women, Ted. And by different, I mean better.”

    3. Yeah, no. For nearly a solid year, she’s been stepping in shit, either saying something stupid or having something revealed about her that’s not good for her candidacy. This one actually has criminal penalties associated with it and gives Congress all the excuse it needs to subpoena every document, server, person, whatever that’s ever been even tangentially associated with the former Secretary.

      So this isn’t the end. It’s the beginning.

      1. The Beginning of the End?

        1. That or the beginning of me being even more appalled at how far America has declined. Ethics? What are those?

          1. meh. America has been through much worse times.

            1. Think of it like a giant pendulum.

            2. Rome had also been through worse times before the Republic was destroyed and replaced with emperors.

              1. That’s a GREAT idea! An emperor wouldn’t need to deal with all those other dumb branches of government. Why didn’t anyone think of that before!?

            3. Yes, but the government was never as huge and interventionist as it is now. It tried to be during the Depression, but the strings weren’t all tied to DC then, nor did it have its fingers and other extremities jammed into the economy to this extent.

              1. true but it’s sometimes more fun to be a wide-eyed optimist.

                1. I’m like that with technology. I keep hoping we’ll tech ourselves out of trouble, just out of pure luck.

        2. There is no beginning and there is no end. There is only a continuous wheel that keeps turning. Or, something, something, something that that kid from the Matrix said. Or, possibly Buddha.

          1. There is no spoon?

            1. And I’m Ted “Theodore” Logan?

              1. The other Bo is Bo S. Preston Esquire.

          2. “There is no spoon ethics.

      2. She’s just getting all these fake scandals out of the way before the serious business of determining who spends our tax dollars for the next 4 or 8 years begins

    4. Now, now. “Ethics” and “standards” are so 20th century. They are concepts imposed upon us by the patriarchy. or something. Get with the program, SF. None of this shit matters any more. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    5. I expect that the private email server and the laundering of foreign money will eventually get connected.

      1. Since she has physical control of the server, all evidence will be destroyed. So, no.

        1. I think the combined inclination and incompetence of those “investigating” her would make destroying any evidence quite unnecessary.

        2. Your email security is only as good as the security of every single person you ever sent a message to.

        3. The Clintons house may actually burn down soon.

          And Vince Foster might commit suicide.

    6. It’s not just an ethics violation though because you can be sure it’s connected to all of the other shit she’s done. You don’t make such an extensive and committed effort to break the rules if you aren’t trying to hide something. It’s not like shooting an occasional private email to a coworker about friday night plans.

  16. *prepares the summoning of the buttplug*

    So, Peanut Butter, is this still a phake skandul?

    1. Of course you ChristFag Republican Scumbag Womynz Hating Socon.

      BoooooSH ! did it or something worse so it’s OK

  17. Yeah, well Palin thought her house was in Russia, so nyeah.

  18. It wouldn’t have mattered if the question was worded a little bit better, though. Clinton has no plans to answer questions about the emails any time soon.

    Why should she? She’s the President-elect. Why would she jeapordise that by opening up her skeleton closet?

    1. This is correct. She’s the sovereign; therefore, she has sovereign immunity.

      1. “In place of a dark lord you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn and treacherous as the sea, stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair.”

        – except from Hillary Clinton’s inauguration speech

        1. And except the beautiful part. Oh wait, you meant “Excerpt”.

          1. Well, she is stronger than the foundations of the earth because of her cankles (low center of gravity – very low).

  19. Hillary Clinton’s Question-Dodging Response to the Private Email Scandal

    She’s a text dodger!

    1. And probably a cum dodger too. I can’t really see her taking Bill’s load in the face (nor would I want to see that).

      1. Didn’t stop you from writing about it.

        1. I blame SugarFree.

  20. Didn’t she at some point as SoS send and email to SOMEONE with an email bearing the extension @whitehouse.gov? Assuming this happened, wouldn’t that person see that she was not using her proper email address? Thus, I cannot believe the White House did not know she was failing to use a official email address.

    1. I was wondering whether she faked up a proxy so that it looked like a State e-mail address. Not sure whether that’s feasible, and I assume anyone could break through that if they tried, but wouldn’t something like that fool the casual recipient?

    2. I am tech-stupid, but I guess she could do that. But if that’s the case, then it looks even worse. ” Its wrong, I knew it was wrong and I actively tried to conceal it from my boss.”

      1. Yeah, I don’t think she’s worried about the appearances of things. She’s well past mere hubris.

        1. That is true. That is true.

        2. I also think that she scares the shit out of people at the WH.

          Wasn’t it LBJ who said he’d rather have J. Edgar Hoover on the inside of the tent pissing out, than on the outside pissing in?

          I think that is why she got the job at State in the first place and why no one confronted her.

      2. You’re overthinking this. Most people don’t look at email addresses, so they wouldn’t have noticed. The only people who would have noticed is IT, maybe.

        1. People do look at email addresses. When they needed to email her, many people would have tried to find her in the DoS directory, discovered she wasn’t in it, and then would have had to either ask someone or dig through their archives to find out what it was.

    3. PBR you’re so naive.

      Of fucking course they did.

      She’s Hillary Clinton fer Christsakes.

      You think they woud ruin their jobs with legal insider trading status and six figure pensions to bring that to light ?

      have you any idea of what legal insider trading status can add to your granchildren’s status in life ?

  21. “With the blunder of the emails, was that just a generalization gap or can that be corrected?”

    As i asked yesterday = WTF is a “generalization gap”?

    And that question isn’t ‘worded poorly’; its fucking idiotic. You don’t ask a question that presumes things like “blunder”. If it is one, its unecessary to state it. Calling it such sounds like you’re trying to trick someone into some kind of confession.

    1. Is Agile Cyborg a reporter???

    2. I think this is one of those deals (like Lerner’s hard drive crash) that really breaks down along a divide based on a person’s technical background.

      People who have worked in the industry or really like computers, look at this scandal and freak out. Normals look at it and don’t get what the big deal is.

      I’m sure that if John Stewart made a joke about this not being a “full blown generalization gap” issue, we would see a deluge of articles downplaying the scandal because it wasn’t a generalization gap issue after all.

      When the Lerner hard drive crash excuse was floated, it was amazing to me how many people I knew didn’t break out into guffaws at it. They really thought that was how email worked.

      1. you missed my question =

        WTF is a “generalization gap” at all?

        It sounds like some dumb play on “generation gap”, but i have no idea what the intended meaning of it is, or what its suggesting about conflating ‘generalizations’ and ‘gaps’. Is it a euphemism for “Lying”? Because that seems to be how its being used.

        1. Whatever it is, we must not allow it Mr. President!

        2. I don’t know what it means either, I just wrote it off as the latest journalistic buzzword that I don’t have to learn because it will be replaced by something else in a few months.

          1. Maybe.

            Its seems even the WaPo and HuffPo journalists don’t know WTF it means either.

            The reaction by both was, and I quote = “Wait, what? Generalization gap??”

            Maybe the TMZ reporter was “Pootie Tang

            The only reference to the expression i could find was a term some child psychologist used to explain how old people sometimes refer to “Kids these days” = ‘making assumptions about ‘all young people’ based on the behavior of a visible few

            Something tells me that’s not what the person was going for. Who knows

            1. It’s generalization gap as in Hillary is old so she didn’t really know what it meant when she was told that her emails as SoS had to go through the Govs secure email service because she is too old to be a techie but not too old to be President and that accusing her of doing wrong here is just a generalization of a bunch of right wing conspiricies who just sit around all the time and generalize that she is generally against their Warz on Wiminz and they hate childrens and mexikins because they just generalize about millineals and Mexikan butt sex.

              ANd POT !

    3. I think they meant “generation gap” as in “Is Clinton just too old to know how to use email properly?”

    4. I think this is what happens when you send a photographer to do the work of a reporter.

  22. Well, um, Scott Walker dodged a question about evolution. WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

    1. Well Duh.

      he doesn’t even have a college education.

      Uv course he doesn’t no about evolution.

  23. Well, no threaded comments is nice, but it’s a rather primitive-looking format.

  24. I am confused. Why are any of you discussing whether or not her account was hackable?

    We already know it was hacked. If some Romanian scam artist could hack it then the Chinese, the Russians, probably not the Norks, but damn near everyone else did too.

    Maybe it wasn’t just Obumbles incompetence that got him slapped around and made a laughing stock. Maybe the people doing it had his playbook.

    1. was her account hacked or was sid Blumenthal’s account hacked?

  25. Surely this is the death knell of the Cult of HRC as POTUS….surely they are all putting on their jumpsuits and filling their pockets with change as we type these comments, right?

    1. We can only hope you are right.

      But I fear not, as she has a V jay jay and that seems to be the next prerequisite for POTUS.

      After all, it’s their turn, right ?

  26. The funny thing is even in the private sector anyone doing this is viewed askance if they aren’t *corrected* by their manager certainly after if not before this practice becomes a problem. That this is acceptable by the SoS and the DoS is a laugh riot.

    “Did you tell her aides that she can’t keep using that server?”
    “I told that one bitch but she just said that was above my concern and IT doesn’t dictate to the SecState.”
    “Fucking A…..now I have to go tell InfoSec why she isn’t in compliance….”
    “Close the door….I’m chopping a line….”

  27. Who cares? But, did you know Rand Paul once went to the circus and clapped for the elephant act? And Scott Walker once ate a slice of wedding cake that had different gendered figures on the top of it.

    1. Cake? Who cares ?

      He doesn’t even have a college degree.

      Of course he wants cake.

  28. my friend’s mother-in-law makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her pay check was $15127 just working on the computer for a few hours. see post……………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  29. I’m gonna be at least middle-aged by the time I’m done defending presidents to you guys. If Republicans didn’t actively work for the destruction of my country, I’d want one in office just so we could change the subject for a while.

    1. Whenever I read any portion of any comment posted by you all I see is “derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp”

      1. Whenever I see your handle I see someone who’s probably aged far out of when obsessing over Ayn Rand is acceptable.

        1. Derp derp derp.

        2. Herpy-derpity-doo.

          1. Speaking of Ayn Rand, the article says of Clinton, ‘Instead [of being concerned about other people], she was concerned about herself.’ Sounds like she’s getting ready for your Gulch there.

            1. I don’t know–if she was that concerned about herself, she probably wouldn’t have done government business on a proprietary email server with questionable security protocols.

              1. I think anyone who can stay afloat in mainstream politics is pretty much out for Number One, with due respect, of course, for the cronies. However, Number One in this case may not be all that up on technological matters, in spite of her media-famed ‘wonkiness’. I’m guessing she gave the job of knowing about them to someone who will not be named, lest he or she be questioned closely.

            2. He could have sworn it said Cheney and threw out Ayan Rand as a compromise.

  30. Will it matter if government funds were used to setup Hillary’s “private” email server? I would like to know who paid for the server, who requested it, who ran it, who guarded it and where the money came from. Could this also become a misappropriation of funds issue?

    1. Good question.

      Maybe it was Iran or some other foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation ?

      It must have been someone right?

      All their income has been from donors.

      1. It’s one or the other. If she paid for the server with her own funds, then it was done to conceal and control (their is no other interpretation) and she broke several laws doing so. If she paid for it with government funds then it’s an illegal server/enterprise and as I said, I would think that is a misappropriation of funds. And when the Dems point to others that have used private emails to conduct business, they weren’t operating a subversive server paid for (probably) with tax payer dollars as she did. The only way she skates on this is if the media let’s he off the hook. And as we all know…

  31. Who are we to question the Queen?

  32. It takes a village to use a server to send private emails.

    1. It takes a village to help the Queen make certain her official activities in high government are never revealed to the public.

  33. Buerocratic snafu.

  34. Well I don’y care much for any Party member… Hillary is useless for anything but fund raising. That said, I don’t see why she can’t use any email she wants, for any purpose she wants. So much of what a reasonable person could call “corruption” has been legalized and institutionalized that it’s hard to believe that using private email is considered worse than insider trading, or receiving donations from foreign countries.

    Nothing the Party does is open to the public anyway. They’re not wanting to track her emails for my sake.

  35. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  36. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  37. Shrillary apparently did not include any of the good stuff in her 55,000 pages of emails.

    “According to those screenshots, Blumenthal was regularly sending Clinton what appeared to be freelance intelligence reports?including info and advice about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya?all of which clearly fell under the rubric of official State Department business,”

    Gawker “filed a FOIA request with the agency for all correspondence to date between Hillary and Blumenthal,” “specifically including any messages to or from the hdr22@clintonemail.com account.” We now know that email address did, in fact, belong to former Secretary of State Clinton. Had she been following the rules and forwarding all email about official business to government servers, the State Department would’ve found the Blumenthal email. They found nothing.

    “The State Department replied to our request by saying that, after an extensive search, it could find no records responsive to our request,” Trotter writes. “That is not to say that they found the emails and refused to release them?it is conceivable, after all, that the State Department might have attempted to deny the release of the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence on grounds of national security or Blumenthal’s own privacy. Instead, the State Department confirmed that it didn’t have the emails at all.”

  38. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.go-review.com

  39. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.big-reports.com

  40. Hillary is fully protected by the POTUS & DOJ.
    Nothing will come on any federal crimes she has committed. At this point in time why does it matter ?

  41. “Clinton’s behavior shows that her only priority is herself.”

    You say that like it’s a big surprise. What part of “Clinton” didn’t you understand?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.