Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Says She Used One Phone and Private Email While Secretary of State for 'Convenience'

Yet just a few weeks ago, she said she used two different phones.


screenshot via CSPAN

In a press conference at the United Nations today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded for the first time to questions about her decision to conduct all of her email business from a single, privately run account during her tenure at State. The heated session, which lasted roughly twenty minutes before coming to an abrupt end, left more questions than answers.

First, Clinton claimed that her decision to rely on a single email account was so that she could carry a single phone. This, she said repeatedly, was for "convenience." Many of her emails, she noted, were sent to government employees at government addresses and recorded that way. At the time the decision was made, it "didn't seem like an issue."

At best this excuse suggests that Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability, which is probably not a great look for someone who is expected to announce a presidential campaign in the near future.

It's also more than a little bit difficult to completely believe—not only because it's common for government employees to carry multiple devices in order to manage multiple accounts, but also because, in a video taken just a few weeks ago, Clinton said she has two different phones: an iPhone and a Blackberry.

(Video via the GOP research shop America Rising.)

This doesn't prove that Clinton used two phones while secretary of state, but it does suggest that, at least at this point, she finds it convenient enough to keep two of them around.

Clinton also said today that she had instructed aides to turn over all work-related emails from the account to the State Department, and for those emails to be made public after State Department review. She said she insisted that the search parameters be broad, that the collection effort "err on the side of providing anything that could possibly be viewed as work related."

But she also said that about half of the roughly 60,000 emails on the server were deemed personal, and therefore not handed over. (She seemed at one point to suggest that the emails deemed personal may have been destroyed, although it's not entirely clear whether that's what she meant.)

How could the public trust that all relevant emails had been turned over? Would she allow independent access to her private server?

No, she said, she would not make the server itself public, in part because the "server contains personal communications from my husband and me."

The argument here seems to be that any look at Hillary Clinton's emails on the server would also expose Bill Clinton's emails. There are two problems with this excuse. One is that it requires the public to simply trust that Clinton and those going through the emails on her behalf turned over every single relevant email. Without independent verification, there's no way to check whether or not this is true. 

The other reason to be skeptical is that Bill Clinton doesn't use email. According to The Wall Street Journal, the former president has sent only two emails in his life, both while president—before Hillary Clinton's current private email system was set up. So what personal communications would a look at her email server expose? 

Clinton didn't say. Instead, she argued broadly that she had met all of her obligations to preserve communications, and that most of her emails were preserved automatically because they were sent to other government employees on their government email accounts.

So what about Scott Gration, the former Air Force General and ambassador to Kenya who was pushed out—he says he was "fired"—in part because he wasn't using his official government email account?

This was the subject of the final question asked during the session, and she responded by dismissing its premise, then walking out. "I think you should go online and read the entire IG report, that is not an accurate representation of what happened," she said as an aide whisked her away from the press.

Fair enough. Here's what the Inspector General's report on the matter says:

The Ambassador's greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information. [emphasis added]

Clinton did express a tinge of regret about the choice to rely on a single phone and a single email account. "Looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones," she said. Judging by this mess of a press conference, which will likely satisfy only the most ardent Clinton defenders, it probably would have been more convenient.

NEXT: Here's What the Senate's Massive Sex-Trafficking Bill Would Actually Do

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. Well, if it was for her convenience, why would anyone hope she’s prosecuted for braking the law? I mean, that would be inconvenient, no?

    1. I wish someone would brake the law.

      1. Or at least downshift and let the transmission brake the law.

        1. Technically, that’s engine braking.

      2. “I wish someone would brake the law.”

        I wish for an edit function!

  2. Can someone point to a single project that Hillary Clinton spearheaded that wasn’t a colossal fuck up?

    Her election to the senate as a New Yorker was a clusterfuck saved only by the fact she was a Democrat running in New York.

    Everything else was abject failure. Sure she fucked Bill Clinton, but so did a bunch of other women. He’s the Mt Monadnock of sexual conquests. She fucked up her husband’s health care initiative; her tenure at the state department is a pathetic litany of lost allies and emboldened enemies, she lost the nomination to Barrack Obama.

    I guess one can point to her accomplishment of being the only participant in the whitewater deal to avoid jail time, but that was probably her husband’s doing too.

    1. Sure she fucked Bill Clinton

      [Citation needed]

      1. “[Citation needed]”
        Seen Chelsea?

          1. Chelsea looks as much like Webb Hubbell as Bill.

            1. Wrong. She looks a lot more like Hubbell than anything like Bill.

            2. I don’t think so–she just had the bad fortune to get the worst features of both her parents.

              1. Looking at Chelsea, I find it hard to believe she’s not the bastard spawn of Hubbell.

            3. Willy < Webb

          2. I took Sevo’s statement that Chelsea was yet another thing that came out of Hillary wrong.

            She definitely wasn’t much to look at as a youngster, now that she’s wearing mommy jeans it isn’t going to get better.

            1. She’s actually not terrible looking. Sounding, thinking, expressing, yes, she is terrible at all of those, but she’s not hideous. Yet. Like Palpatine and Hillary, I’m sure the evil will age her terribly, but she’s starting out ok. Like, a 6 or 7.

              1. HeteroPatriarch|3.10.15 @ 7:59PM|#
                …”but she’s not hideous.”…

                Hear, hear!
                That’s about as faint as praise can get.

              2. Like, a 6 or 7.

                That’s way too generous. I’d say maybe a 5.

              3. Cut, nip, hammer, sew, inject …what you’re referring to as Chelsea is little more Chelsea Clinton than the Michelangelo sculpture David is actually King David.

            2. The SNUKE

        1. Unfortunately, yes, but with modern technology, that’s no guarantee.

        2. I’ll give you that it probably proves Chelsea is Hillary’s daughter, but beyond that, [paternity proof needed].

        3. That’s not proof she fucked Bill, just proof she fucked.

          1. There are not many other people she could have fucked that would have resulted in a daughter with a face like that. I don’t see how she’s not Bubba’s daughter.

            1. …”I don’t see how she’s not Bubba’s daughter.”

              That apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

          2. So the turkey baster theory is out?

    2. She’s an ace on the futures market.

      1. That was a scam, of course. She took a bribe or payoff of some kind. Her broker just gave her any winning trades, and assigned the losing ones to someone else, and later got convicted of doing just that (for another client, not Hillary).

        1. Hillary is coated with pure Teflon?.

    3. She literally paved the way for ISIS in Syria and Libya. Biggest fuck up since the Korean War.

    4. Her only project to succeed was *Bill Clinton*.

      I’m of the opinion that she adds touchy ruthlessness and ability to hold (and act on) a grudge to Bill’s charisma and as a pair worked well together to allow him to rise to the top of American politics.

      Bill’s is the last smiling, friendly face you’ll see as Hillary cuts your throat.

      1. Seems like all the Clinton toadies are beholden to her.

      2. Totally agree. They are the MacBeths of US politics.

        If it was up to Bill, I don’t think he ever does better than AG of Arkansas. High enough office to get lots of strange and not too much work.

        Hillary is the one who pushed him into running for Gov and then Pres.

        They have the classic good cop/bad cop routine. If Bill needs to make a tough decision he can blame it on her. People still like him afterwards, they just chalk it up to her being a bitch.

        That is why she has so much trouble on her own. No one likes her and her entire career has been cast as the hard ass who fucks people over.

        1. “No one likes her and her entire career has been cast as the hard ass who fucks people over.”

          So she’s Beria?

          1. So she’s Beria?

            Without the cheery disposition.

    5. She’s good at telling tall tales about “landing under fire” in an airplane.

      1. Maybe that was the same helicopter that BW was riding in when it got hit!

    6. She found those FBI files that no one else could.

  3. At the time the decision was made, it “didn’t seem like an issue.”

    At that point, what difference did it make? None. Now? We’ll see.

  4. Well of course it’s convenient to be able to delete e-mail communications from your personal server between you and the foreign contacts you shake down for Clinton Family Foundation funds.

    If that was to come to light that would be……inconvenient.

  5. It took me all of 3 minutes to set up the Gmail app on my phone and Thunderbird to access two different accounts on two different servers. One app per device, same accounts on different devices, everything is sync’d. So why couldn’t she do that?

    1. In her defense – this is usually not allowed on official devices.

      She can’t/isn’t supposed to install Gmail on her government phone – not even supposed to access it on government computers (without special exemption).

      1. OK, that’s fine.

        My phone came with a generic email app not tied to Gmail. It can be set up with any account one wants (as can the Gmail app itself…the account you use doesn’t have to pass through Gmail’s servers).

        Same with Thunderbird, and I presume any email client worth downloading.

        And how is it that there is a prohibition on using Gmail but not your own private server?

        1. The thing is – and everyone seems to be missing this – there IS a prohibition on that sort of thing.

          No audits controlled by a compliant plan = completely uncontrolled IS = almost certain data spills = bad news for the proles, but not Hillary.

          1. completely uncontrolled IS

            That was the crowning achievement of her reign at State.

            Oh, IS doesn’t just mean Islamic State?

            1. *golf clap*

            2. Consider my gaze narrowed, sir.

      2. Someone should email her these links:


          1. It’s in the news?

            hdr22@clintonemail.com Down, Hillary Clinton Legally Untouched

            White House: Obama Traded Email With Private Clinton Account

      3. Of course they would never bend the rules and change the settings for the Secretary of State or anything. No, her only alternative was to build her own email service, poor woman. Why she couldn’t get a commercial account and had to have her own domain is just one of those sexist questions that are impolite to ask a lady.

        1. Did she ask whether this was okay? I mean, if I were SoS, I’d go to the counsel and ask him. Not that she’s know to do that with all of her “experience” and law degree and stuff.

          1. The Obama people are saying they told her not to do it.

            1. Ah, the pile on. Excellent. Please evil people, destroy each other.

              1. There’s few things more enjoyable in life than watching progs eat each other.

                1. I wish I could help them, in some small way.

                  1. Spray them with BBQ sauce.

                  2. Flatware makes an excellent gift.

      4. “In her defense – this is usually not allowed on official devices.”

        Ah yeah. She was unaware of every other requirement concerning emails, etc. — but not that rule. On that one, she can probably explain the subclauses. How… er… convenient it is, the rules she follows strictly.

      5. No need to defend Hillary, she has admitted many times that she carries multiple phones. You see, she sticks her own foot in her mouth because she is too arrogant to remember that people pay attention to what she says.

    2. That could have been highly illegal, too, depending on the contents of the work e-mail. Even if they were unclass, there’s still the case of ITAR-related info and export-controlled info.

      Did anyone at this dog-and-pony show ask anything about ANY of that stuff that is completely independent of whether or not it violated the letter of some DoS administrative policy? Because information protection of those three major types is not optional ever.

      1. She seemed to claim that what she did was legal and allowed by regulations. No idea if that is true.

        1. How could that possibly be true? I can’t see any way a senior official handling classified and highly sensitive information could do so totally without involving a records custodian. It’s both a violation of public records law (which will be proven when an e-mail is coughed up by a recipient that she didn’t report) and, of course, a security breach just in having the external server.

          1. It’s not illegal when the President Secretary of State does it!

        2. Of course, claiming anything else would be political suicide.

          1. Oh, right, of course she’s going to say that. I just wonder how that can even be a colorable claim.

            1. The genius of the Clintons is that they have no shame.

              Hillary doesn’t give a shit who believes her because she has learned that no matter how bad the lie is, how completely it is disproven, no one is going to show up in her office and slap the cuffs on.

              Most people have some shame and when caught (in the case of Anthony Wiener) with their ass showing, they slink off and disappear.

              1. Which is why we should have a prosecution/impeachment a week.

              2. I keep laughing every time I see pics of Clinton, her phone, and Wiener’s wife lurking in the background nearby Shrillery.

            2. Because she is Hillary Fucking Rodham Clinton! Which almost rhymes with FYTW.

        3. Protection of classified, export-controlled, and ITAR information is not optional regardless of what she thinks was “allowed by regulations”.

          1. yes. prison time for the bitch.

          2. It’s optional for her. Many laws are.

            WEBB HUBBLE DOUBLE, TOIL AND TROUBLE, NOTHING CAN INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 PROPHECY! ! Not laws, not men, not the public.

        4. It was illegal and violated Department of State regulations (with with high). Specifically, it is improbable that the Federal Information Security Management Act (2002) legal requirements were met, and the State Department Information Assurance instruction directed FISMA compliance.

      2. I would guess that anything that the Secretary of State said in an email would be export-controlled. Nobody knows any of these technical policy questions, especially not the reporters asking the questions. But, as many have said on these pages, there’s one law for the proles and another for the rulers.

      3. As a mere Subject, if I fucked up with regards to ITAR then I’m AT LEAST shit canned.

  6. To continue my rambling story of an episode from my military history tangentially related to this topic (I know you all find this shit fascinating – its like you’ve got yer own Norman Schwarzkopf here) – My last job in the military I carried up to *5* separate phones.

    Personal phone
    Work phone
    My office’s duty phone
    My boss’ phone (when he was on leave or out of the area)
    The Command duty phone (as Command Duty Officer)

    Granted I was a middling enlisted (E-6) but I’m sure even Hillary could handle two or three phones herself – unless she’s claiming that her advanced age puts her into Jitterbug territory

    1. Heh… *duty* phone.

      You must have looked like a fresh out of college administrative intern juggling four phonecalls at once.

    2. Holy utility belt, Agammamon!

      1. There’s, like, a bell curve of inconvenience as you rise up in the ranks.

        At the lower levels nobody gives a fuck – all you have to do is show up and shut up, while at the upper end the system goes all out to make your life as easy as possible.

        And its those of us in the middle layers that get stuck carrying 5 phones to make your life easier.

        1. I only made it to 3 at my previous job? mobile phone, my pager, and the duty pager.

          (This was back before texting became popular.)

  7. No, she said, she would not make the server itself public, in part because the “server contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

    Tough shit. You commingled personal and public emails.

    Why the fuck doesn’t somebody subpoena and seize that server already? And subpoena the NSA to turn over every single email from that domain?

    1. R C Dean|3.10.15 @ 4:58PM|#
      “Tough shit. You commingled personal and public emails.”
      Yep, she CHOSE to have them commingled; she gave up any claim of privacy.

    2. I imagine it’s too late, but you’re absolutely right: EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL that touched that server is fair game.

    3. Nobody yet knows for sure where the server is physically located. And what sort of security it had.

      1. Oh I suspect it has excellent security. Don’t want any embarrassing info to get out.


      2. WDATPDIM?

        Hillary *said* there were NO SECURITY BREACHES.

        *** puts on Clinton-speak hat ***


        1. And – there’s not a whiff of scandal at the IRS. Not a WHIFF – the President said so.

          Also, the check is in the mail; just a little wine with dinner, officer; my, what a cute little baby; and I won’t cum in your mouth.

          The last one is true, cause – Hillary

        2. Were there security pantsuits?

      3. One Enterprise Ave
        North Secaucus, NJ 07094

    4. They would subpoena that server in almost any other situation. . .except when it’s connected to a political figure.

      I don’t care what your politics are, you should be disturbed by this flagrant abuse of the law and this special treatment that politicians get.

      1. “I don’t care what your politics are, you should be disturbed by this flagrant abuse of the law and this special treatment that politicians get.”

        I’m sure this will be treated as a partisan issue by Shrillery and her sycophants.

        1. Without a doubt, as it’s clear that the Republicans forced her to hide her e-mails in her basement for NO POSSIBLE OTHER REASON THAN TO HIDE UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

          Seriously, what other possible reason is there to do this?

          1. Leading the GOP almost by the nose on an ultimately fruitless goose chase because the emails are already gone and nobody in the DOJ (or whatever bureaucracy oversees this stuff) has any interest in seeing Clinton prosecuted before (and, likely, after) 2016.

            1. Yes, but this could get quite ugly for her. I highly doubt she can successfully suppress e-mails coming out from recipients that she failed to report. Won’t take much of that to demonstrate that she’s destroying/hiding e-mails intentionally. It’s not like she’s some hugely beloved figure with a squeaky clean reputation in the first place.

            2. To clarify, I think she did it because begging forgiveness is easier than asking permission, and she didn’t want to deal with the scrutiny prior to making another bid for president. But the idea of being held accountable certainly did nothing to dissuade her.

              1. It’s also hubris. These people have been getting away with some pretty bad stuff for a long time. And Obama has been getting that kind of pass as well. If you think you’re above the law, there’s a point where you don’t know which bridge is the bridge too far.

                This is how republics fall into authoritarian regimes, too.

                1. Exactly. You’d think the 24/7 News cycle would dissuade them from brazen lawbreaking, but when the mainstream press is supportive, silent, or at worst, expresses mild criticism — and they repeatedly see little to no consequence for their actions, they’re going to become ever more strident in committing the same sort of acts.

                  Dan Quayle misspelling “potato” got more mainstream press time than serious Constitutional questions repeatedly raised by this Administration’s activities.

          2. “the Republicans forced her to hide her e-mails”

            Slate beat you to it. They are already making that exact argument.

    5. Yeah, for once we need a no knock SWAT raid. Where are they?

        1. Holy shit. They’d probably be justified subpoening Internap’s entire data center there. Man…

  8. She is a piece of work. She used decided to emerge at a UN forum to talk. Got bad questions and walked off.


  9. Yet just a few weeks ago, she said she used two different phones.

    This is about the weakest point to call her on.

    I challenge anyone to peruse her press conference and not spot multiple evasions.

  10. If I have a government job I wouldn’t use their damn email servers either, or at least cc and forward email to a gmail or yahoo account every time. Government agencies and corporations often purge emails older than 90 days or so on the premise that they take up too much disk space. They’re not hiding anything. I keep my business emails forever. This helps with the “I told you so” and “Oops, I was wrong” situations common in business. I switched over to gmail a few years back and imported every email I had ever sent and received since 1998. This is with ginormous technical drawing attachments. I am at 17% of my gmail space allotment.

    1. That’s why you don’t save important emails to the email server, you move them to your network drive, but its not a reason to use a third party email service.

    2. Except that as a matter of public record, they do have to keep these without regard to disk space.

    3. With Exchange, it’ll actually slow down Outlook if you have a large number of items in your Inbox and a few other critical folders so it’s best to move them into a folder structure.

      Then, to keep the primary mailbox on Tier 1 storage small, you archive your old email onto slower bulk storage.

      That’s assuming, of course, you’re running a recent version of Exchange, something we can’t expect the government to do?

    4. You have no idea what you’re talking about, widget. It MIGHT be true that unclass and non-sensitive accounts have e-mails get purged, but I highly doubt it. Storage is cheap and plentiful and e-mail is not particularly bulky.

      Anything that is a controlled IS, ESPECIALLY if it deals with classified data, gets kept for many years.

    5. “If I have [sic] a government job I wouldn’t use their damn email servers either”.
      Depending on the agency and the degree to which they adhere to the law, you also might not have that job beyond the 90 day probationary period.

      1. you also might not have that job beyond the 90 day probationary period.

        You say that (not being able to hold a government job) like it’s a bad thing.

      2. Once you make that 90 day period, though, you can shit on your boss’ desk and call in sick for the rest of the year. Just tell them you have to get to your other CIA job.

  11. Hillary Clinton: A Pay Phone Candidate in an iPhone World

    Her faux disclosure is akin to a divorced father losing custody of his four kids, kidnapping them, returning three, and patting himself on the back for turning over “the vast majority of my kids.” He broke the law. Clinton broke the rules.

    Clinton said she didn’t delete any emails, but won’t turn over the server to prove it. She said she emailed no classified information (presumably even to her husband), but won’t cough up the server to prove it. She said there were no security breaches, but won’t produce the server to prove it.

    Trust me, I’m a Clinton. This is part of a decades-old pattern: For all their strengths, Hillary and Bill Clinton have a weakness for victimization, entitlement, and their unbounded belief that the ends justify the means.

  12. You know you can tell she is in trouble on this issue? Neither Tony nor shreek or any of the other Prog sock puppets have shown up on these threads to defend her. That means the Prog media and internet hive haven’t put out the “here is how you defend Hillary” talking points. That probably means they have none and are not going to defend her.

    1. Shrewd observation.

      A kicker is — even if she were to “withdraw from the race because this is too much of a distraction”, she’ll *still* get investigated.

      1. She won’t withdraw from the race.

        It is clear as day that she really, really wants to be president. Last time was supposed to be her turn. She was denied so she probably wants it that much more. There are all of zero Democrats with any real chance of opposing her, so the nomination is basically hers to lose. She’s got more than enough money to fund the campaign. The only thing that will stop her is not getting the nomination.

        1. The only thing that will stop her is not getting the nomination.

          “A vast left-wing conspiracy!”

        2. I am pretty sure the voters can stop her too. And I bet they do.

          1. And the MSM knows this. That’s why they won’t dutifully destroy her opposition anymore, especially not the sanctified Liz Warren.

        3. the nomination is basically hers to lose.

          She did it last time. All she had to do was coast to the nomination, but she couldn’t keep herself from lying, sniveling, and race-baiting her way to failure.


    2. It takes time to craft a good excuse.

      1. Apparently more than a few days.

      2. They are usually quicker than this. You never see tony or shreek or American Socialist or any of the rest of them on a dead dog thread or a pop culture thread. They only show up on threads to defend the cause. Their absence on the Hillary threads has been very conspicuous.

        1. That’s because there is another female POTUS candidate in the Dems that they all prefer. Their first priority is checking the “female” box, but in Warren they have that checked and someone more fundamentally proggie than Hitllary. Also they view Warren as more electable. And I agree.

          1. I don’t think Warren is going to run. She has major baggage that the media has ignored. If she runs, Hillary will make sure the media no longer ignores it and finish her as any kind of a national figure.

            What is likely to happen here is the Progs are going to fatally wound Hillary but still not stop her from winning the nomination. She is not going to quit and it is going to be hard to stop her.

            1. You underestimate the uncanny ability of the TEAM bases to overlook baggage, John.

              1. It won’t matter because it will be Hillary pointing it out. She has friends in the media who will make it a legitimate issue. They only ignore baggage if an evil Republican is making it an issue. Hillary still has a lot of fans in the media and the party. She would destroy Warren. Warren is not going to run.

                1. It won’t matter because it will be Hillary pointing it out.

                  She tried doing the same thing to the current teleprompter-in-chief, and it didn’t matter. Once the press got all gooey-eyed about the “first black president” story, they buried his dirty laundry.


              2. …and the media. Once the Republicans nominate someone, all this will be a distant memory.

                1. Of course but that may not help Hillary.

    3. Don’t bet on that.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they trot out the old “War on Wymen!!!!!!” routine to spin her as a victim for being persecuted for her gender.

      1. She is already doing that. Remember, the Progs hate the Clintons.

      2. This actually came out as a question in the conference.

        Her response: I will leave this to others to answer.

        1. A planted question no doubt.

          1. Why, Gilbert, I am *shocked* by your cynicism!

    4. I don’t know, John. I’m seeing some heated defenses of her on other sites. Maybe Reason isn’t high on the Media Matters priority list right now.

    5. My proggy FB friends are mentioning Jeb Bush’s private email server?

      Except that that server was located in the Governor’s Mansion and IT had access to it?

    6. I was wondering where they were. I hadn’t run into a “But BUSSSSHHHH!” in this thread yet.

  13. So she’s not the “transparent” part of the Most Transparent Administration In History(tm).

  14. What the fuck?

    Hillary said she emailed with Bill, but the thing is …

    “The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman,” WSJ reported. “After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use ? @presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.”

    Warning: autoplay hideousness

    1. I’m kinda shocked at how shittily they are handling this. Maybe Bill likes his current situation and doesn’t want back in the White House?

      1. Harder to fly off unnoticed to Sex Slave Island when you’re the First Gentleman or whatever they’d call him.

    2. Yeah I seem to recall hearing he wasn’t much of an email guy.

      Phishing. No wait…philandering is more his thing.

  15. Look, she says she did nothing wrong, so we should believe her, and move on from this phony scandal to something very serious. Like how Scott Walker enjoyed GMO corn on the cob at the Wisconsin State Fair last summer, and how Rand Paul once fibbed to his dad about cleaning out the hamster’s cage.

  16. I think the fix is in. Rand Paul will be our next President.

    1. Fix? This is a Clinton in its natural environment.

      I hope you’re right, however.

      1. Tundra,

        I think it is time that you and I start a Draft Dayton movement. Think of how awesome it would be to get Gov. Mumbles out of our great state and share him with the world.

        Any time he threatens to do anything too terrible we just start a terrorism rumor and he would shut his office down and send everyone away.

        You and I both know that Dayton is too dumb to be involved in any scandals.

    2. Especially if he comes out as transgendered. 😉

      1. Didn’t work for Rudy

  17. The other reason to be skeptical is that Bill Clinton doesn’t use email.

    I don’t believe that for a second Is there some reason I am unaware of to take that on face value?

    1. Believing a word either of them says is beyond naive, it’s flat-out stupid. Even their supporters know they’re way past merely dishonest.

      1. Email address actually for Bill Clinton, or email for an assitant who will print out the email and put it on his desk if they think it’s important enough? Not that I trust Clinton’s word, but it never ceases to amaze me how terrible a lot of high level politicians and business people are when it comes to tech.

  18. OT, but interesting. Looks like M855 ban is dead for for now.

    I still think it’s time to shut those fuckers down.

    1. Good. I didn’t want to go through another shortage. Other than the LR shortage we are currently suffering. Where are my damn mini-mags!?!?

    2. M855 ban is dead

      Why does the government hate cops? WHY?!

      1. Because they read H&R?

  19. I’m amazed anyone believes she has a snowball’s chance of becoming president unless she’s appointed by emergency decree issued by Obama (PBUH). But, if that circumstance were to come about, he’d appoint himself.

    She has zero charisma ZERO. She looks like a washed-up old hag, which would be fine if she were substantively adequate, but she’s not. There’s nothing to her – just ambition. And she’s ugly.

    1. She has one other chance; the media and Dems find someone to run as a Perot like 3rd party candidate to sucker in gullible centrists and Republicans. In a two way race, however, I agree. I don’t think she could even beat Jeb.

    2. In case I wasn’t clear: She has the charm of a viral toe fungi, the personality of a dried-up sidewalk turd, and the intellect of Butt Plug. So, no.

      1. Hmmm. Not a fan, then?

        1. You know, some dogs get a condition in which their anal sacs become inflamed and need to get expressed. The discharge is incredibly stinky. Dog anal sac discharge is more appealing than Hillary Clinton.

          1. Do you remember the old “who would you rather drink a beer with” question?

            The idea being most people will vote for the person they feel is most relatable and likable.

            I’d rather drink beer with my dog’s anal sac secretion that with Hillary Clinton.

            1. I’ll bring the pretzels.

            2. And I don’t even drink beer.

              1. So, I’ll put you down as undecided then.

            3. I’m guessing she’s not counting on your vote.

              1. If Rand Paul doesn’t win then I’m actually hoping she does. What better way to enjoy the suck? I can spend the next 4 (probably 8) years completely disengaged and take up a hobby like raising alpacas or gardening organic cucumbers, or all of the above.

                Bush or any other Republican are, imo, only slightly less intolerable.

                Why not go the full monty and get the worst possible outcome – Hillary.

                1. It’s like when you’re at the bar and kinda drunk but are thinking about another gin and tonic and need to decide between quitting for the night and heading home or ordering up a double and hoping you don’t black out. Hillary is the blackout option.

                  1. Hillary is the blackout option

                    She was in 2008 too….

                    :::runs for cover::::

                2. gardening organic cucumbers

                  Go on…

                3. take up a hobby like raising alpacas or gardening organic cucumbers

                  Or both? alpaca dung is better fertilizer than chicken dung.

            4. I hate her too. I think the commenters on here underestimate how unappealing she is to normal women.

              1. I didn’t think she stood a chance in a fair election before this latest email scandal. Now I’m not sure she could even drum enough dead people or illegals to get elected.

                1. I dislike that I’m suppose to like her because she’s a woman. She’s not my idea of what a truly smart and accomplished woman is.

                  I’d rather Margaret Thatcher’s dead body be dug up and elected.

          2. *applauds*

            The Lady is not kiddin’ around!

            1. I think Lady Bertram may be right. Hillary is just not a natural politician like Bill. She comes off as fake or shrill. In a debate, she’ll be at risk of her true self coming out. Plus she has health issues, and most voters haven’t heard of her many scandals. The “I’m a woman” strategy seems flawed, given that there are numerous women out there who she has attacked, including a child rape victim whose attacker she defended.

              And another Democrat president? After this disaster? And another affirmative action hire? I don’t sense the desire for that.

              It’ll be a shrill and dramatic election, one way or the other.

              1. That, and her women-and-minority-strong campaign lost out to Obama’s white frat boy campaign? which she’s using as her 2016 campaign.

      2. While I concur with your comments regarding Hillary’s attributes, unfortunately a lot of people don’t. Because she’s Hillary. She was the first lady — you know, Bill Clinton’s wife. Wasn’t that awesome? And she’s supposed to be our next President. And she’s a woman. And stuff. All of this is much more important than actually having any substance or charisma.

        I’m not sure if there’s any overcoming the Stupid. They want her to be President, and all the media has to do is keep them coasting with the inertia they’ve already got.

    3. That’s why its the left-leaning MSM that are burying her. Their primary goal is checking a diversity box in their next POTUS nominee and they have that in Warren, the person that will be their nominee. They’re working to destory Hillary now so that they give Warren enough time to declare and get money and a machine behind her.

      Warren will be the Democratic nominee. I said it a year ago and was called crazy.

      1. I don’t think so. While the party has lurched far more to the left than I ever thought it would, it still has a decent number of voters who aren’t batshit insane. They also have to know that Warren would get zero independent votes and zero GOP votes. Fuck, I’d vote GOP if she were the nominee, just because I’m not ready for a communist dictatorship just yet.



          1. Well, naturally. As everyone knows, libertarians are all socon Republican Nazis. I mean, it’s axiomatic.

            1. We’re also all (something incoherent about) gamer gate.

              1. In all honesty, I’m still not sure I even understand what that whole thing is about, despite having it explained to me.

            2. libertarians are all socon Republican Nazis

              Who smoke dope. Don’t forget the dope.

              1. …aaaaaand love the butt secks and Messicans.

            3. We’re one step away from banning unearned income (25 Points #11), confiscating all war profits (25 Points, #12), requiring profit sharing in all industries (25 Points, #14), giving a generous Social Security benefit increase (25 Points, #15), communalizing large stores (25 Points, #16), and establishing a national labor organization with branches that:

              * Provide free/cheap recreation and vacation facilities and help people save for cars and other household goods (KdF)
              * Renovates factories and builds new facilities like lunchrooms for workers (SdA)
              * Provide employment for the unemployed performing civic projects like planting trees, building roads, doing erosion control, etc., etc. (RAD)

              1. Someone should update and rewrite that as a progressive petition and see how many go for it.

                1. Should be 100%. It’s what they honestly believe in.

                  1. Well, not the part about foreigners being deported. But the rest is spot on.

                    1. And of course, out of all those things, that’s what gets you considered “Far right” in Europe – being against open borders.

                      Never mind all that socialism and State this and State that, the Nazis are considered “far right” because of the closed borders part.

                  2. It can’t be 100%. “1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples” would give it away immediately. Just change that to “1. We demand the self-determination of all peoples.” Etc.

      2. The Hildebeast would leave Warren in a lifeless heap on the floor and Warren knows it. Warren is a total fraud who lied to get her job, is a slum lord, and represented every nasty corporate defendant you could imagine. The media ignores all of that but won’t if she runs for President. Warren wants no part of any actual hostile examination of her past.

        1. Not in a debate. Hillary is among the worst debaters I’ve seen. Warren knows how to mouth the proper platitudes. Hillary’s machine will try to destroy her in the primaries by highlighting her career, but it won’t matter to true believers.

          Although if both end up declaring and debating, I will avoid that debate. The new season of House of Cards showed me what a catty bitchfest that will undoubtedly be.

          1. She won’t do it in a debate. That is not how the Clinton machine works. She will do it with her media allies. There would be one hit piece after another in real left wing major outlets. Warren would be torn to shreds.

            1. But doesn’t the lack of defense for her actions show you that her media allies are, as Maggie would say, getting wobbly?

              I think they were happy to tow her menagerie of criminal lions around while she was the only viable female candidate. But now they have Warren, who they view as more electable (a point upon which I agree, the electorate of this country is lurching further and further left, by the day, and Hillary is widely seen as yet another psuedo-royal what with her surname and pesky insistence on remaining around). They also prefer Warren’s ideological bona fides. And they view her and her family as dwindling in power and prestige. Why wouldn’t they tether their hopes to a rising ship that is Warren?

              1. Warren is not going to run. You watch. She met with Hillary a couple of months ago and stopped all talk of running right after. Forget it, She isn’t running. It looks like O’Malley and Webb are the only two who are going to take her on.

                1. Until Hillary’s chances immolate on her server totum.

                  Then there will be a vacuum, not enough vaginas running for POTUS. Enter Warren, who has the only thing that matters to the Dems for a POTUS candidate right now.

                2. ” It looks like O’Malley and Webb are the only two who are going to take her on.”

                  I’d give my middle nut to see a Rand Paul vs. Uncle Joe debate.

                3. Today’s Democratic Party is about as likely to nominate Jim Webb as they are Paul Ryan. The progs would not go along. Obama has pulled the party too far to the left for Webb to be a national candidate.

              2. I’m pretty sure the media hate Hillary. They really are a bunch of sycophant throne kissers. When they sense weakness, as they do now, they’ll mob her like a bunch of Slate readers do fundamentalist Christians.

                Look, Obama was president for 8 years; it’s the Republican’s turn now. The media needs an acceptable Republican to push over the finish line: Jeb Bush.

                If the media has it’s way the next president will be Jeb Bush.

                1. I’m wondering if the media and some Democrats (including Obama) aren’t hoping for a GOP president. After eight years, the media could go into attack mode again, and Obama could blame all the cleanup of his disasters on Republicans. “I tried to fix the country, but it was so hard to overcome what Bush did, and now the Republicans are undoing my work….”

                  1. And, we’re going to have another financial crisis, probably another epic financial crisis. The Dems have their collective fingers crossed that we get through the next election and it happens on the next guy’s watch – better he be a Republican and better yet, a Bush.

      3. Warren will be the Democratic nominee.

        I doubt it. I think the next Democrat nominee is going to have to be someone with more victim cards than a rich white lady.

        Hell, Oprah Winfrey could take it in a cakewalk.


    4. Senator, I’ve *seen* Madelaine Albright. You may look like her, but you’re no Madelaine Albright.

      1. Hillary is no beauty, but c’mon man. Madeleine Albright was a Ferengi.

  20. First, Clinton claimed that her decision to rely on a single email account was so that she could carry a single phone.

    Because two email accounts requires two separate phones? Or is it because a phone that handles two or more email accounts is just too heavy to carry around?

    At best this excuse suggests that Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability[…]

    At worst it shows her utter contempt for people’s intelligence.

    1. Or is it because a phone that handles two or more email accounts is just too heavy to carry around?

      You’ll notice it’s called “software”, OM — not “lightware”.

    2. It’s almost certainly improper or illegal to mix private and government accounts on the same physical device.

      1. Sure for people that the law applies to – you know, the little ones.

      2. I don’t think that’s true in general — some agencies have webmail services that can be accessed through HTTPS when you don’t have physical access to a govt owned device. (of course emails would still reside on the govt server)

        However, for Sensitive but Unclassified information (which the SoS would deal with a ton), this probably is not an option.

        1. Outlook Web Access is not the same thing. It’s pretty much always behind AT LEAST a VPN, and often requires its own verification.

          I was speaking of mobile devices specifically, i.e. phones, anyway. Those are a different, harder-to-secure beast.

  21. “Well officer, you see, I ran the red light because it was more convenient for me to not stop.”

    “Your Honor, I did not steal that money; I put my clients’ funds into my own account because it was more convenient than having to deal with all that additional accounting and record keeping.”

    “But General, I always leave the classified military documents out on my desk at night. It’s so much more convenient to have them ready when I come in the next day. I don’t have to remember the code to the safe and open the safe, those activities take away time from my morning coffee and donut.”

    1. “Your Honor, I did not steal that money; I put my clients’ funds into my own account because it was more convenient than having to deal with all that additional accounting and record keeping.”

      Governor Corzine, is that you?

  22. Just saw Feinstein’s take: The *important* thing is that Hillary talked about it.

    With all due respect, WTF? *Especially* for the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 8-(

  23. There’s one question no one in the media is asking, and it should be asked: “Who was the server administrator?”

    The server admin would have had access to all of her emails as well as every other email account on the server. He probably managed the backups if there were any. This guy definitely has access to uber secret information, so who was watching him? He wasn’t a government employee. Did he have the proper federal clearance to manage secret or top secret information?

    Any journalist worth their salt should be out looking for the server administrator. I think that guy needs 15 minutes of fame.

    1. I would start with DC area cemetaries and examine the records of all buried within a month of her leaving State.

      1. They can’t touch him. It’s some dudes living in Mumbai.

        1. The server was in her house.

          1. It was a Microsoft Server 2008 R2 box running Exchange. No politician has the ability or intellect to set that bad bear up with a UCC SSL and multiple domains. There is an admin, a well trained one, who had full administrative access to the server. And I bet you a nickel they had remote access set up. If the sys admin got his credentials hijacked, that would mean anyone could remotely access that server and harvest all of the data.

            Was the network running IDS? If not, the server may already be compromised and since “it’s private” they wouldn’t necessarily know.

      2. Murder rates always go down anytime the Clintons are out of office.

    2. This guy definitely has access to uber secret information

      Hillary says she never used email for anything secret or sensitive, if you can believe that. But I agree that she should be asked who the server admins were.

      1. Given Clinton’s track record, it’s unlikely we’ll ever be allowed to know.

        1. Vince Foster?

          1. Dead men tell no tales.

    3. Did he have the proper federal clearance to manage secret or top secret information?

      I seriously doubt that’s an issue. Even the @state.gov address she eschewed would have only been permitted to traffic in unclassified information.

      1. That doesn’t mean classified didn’t get on there, mostly because it’s clear that Hillary doesn’t give a shit about the State Department’s own rules about protecting information.

        In any case, the state.gov address very, very easily could have contained export-controlled or ITAR information.

  24. “… Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability” and probably the law. Specifically, computer systems that store and process US government are, and were, required to be certified according to the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 and numerous NIST publications that provide implementation guidance, as well as the State Department Information Assurance Guide. It is quite unlikely that the server could have been provisioned and certified, a process that normally takes quite a few people quite a few weeks, by the time Ms. Clinton assumed office. Indeed, the fact that there has been no statement that the system was certified for its use suggests that it never was.

    As department head, Ms. Clinton was responsible not only to follow the law in her own activities but to ensure that the department and its other employees did so as well, including those on her immediate staff who used her private email server.

    1. Somebody finally pointed out FISMA and the NIST/DoS standards that anyone who’s worked in defense contractor sysadmin has had to deal with since approximately forever!

      +1, Tom

  25. “… Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability” and probably the law. Specifically, computer systems that store and process US government are, and were, required to be certified according to the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 and numerous NIST publications that provide implementation guidance, as well as the State Department Information Assurance Guide. It is quite unlikely that the server could have been provisioned and certified, a process that normally takes quite a few people quite a few weeks, by the time Ms. Clinton assumed office. Indeed, the fact that there has been no statement that the system was certified for its use suggests that it never was.

    As department head, Ms. Clinton was responsible not only to follow the law in her own activities but to ensure that the department and its other employees did so as well, including those on her immediate staff who used her private email server.

    1. Good point. I think all this is really going to hurt her with techy voters.

  26. Two things could have happened: Dept. of State attorneys told her to use a State Dept email address and she blew them off, or the attorneys were afraid to give her the advice in the first place. Emails dealing with gov’t business are government property. It doesn’t matter where they reside. If litigation starts, it will be very easy to subpoena her private records. I hope she has a bank stash to pay litigation costs.

  27. Her response was typical. There’s a set of standards for us important people, and another for you (waves hand dismissively) little people.

    Sounds like typical presidential material to me.

    1. Surely if any of we peons decided we shall live by our own rules for the sake of our own convenience the outcome for us would not be so pleasant.

  28. That has to be the lamest excuse ever.


  29. It’s good to be Queen.

  30. Why can’t we all just move on? Such a non-scandal. The NSA has all of it anyway. If I worked for the NSA I know what I would be doing on my lunch hour.

  31. She was standing in an orchestra pit during the press conference.

  32. So strange that these amazing geniuses don’t know something so basic as the fact that you can add any number of email addresses to a single phone (iPhone, Droid, whatever)

  33. HOT HOT HOT!!! Big news just launching new kayads same admin with kayads join now & start earning

    go to link……….. http://www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  34. As a 30-year government employee I can testify all government employees are given yearly rigorous training as to the ethical use of government property. The higher up the ladder you rise, the more security briefings you must attend.

    It is simply impossible Hillary could have been unaware of these requirements. She would have to be brain-dead, the rules are hammered into us.

    The truth is that she disregarded the fundamental rules governing use of government property.

    Regardless of gender or skin color, is such a person suitable for the highest office?

  35. There are multiple issues in regard to this event. First the federal regulation implemented in 2009 requiring all emails related to government business be stored on a server managed by National Archives. Second, Clinton issued directive to State dept employees that said all Dept business must use a .gov account. Third, she fired an Ambassador for violating this directive. Even more troubling is the idea that she and she alone gets to decide what is and what is not public information, In addition, she decided she was not required to follow the same rules as the employees working for her. Both of the Clintons have a long history of ignoring/manipulating the law, parsing words and flat out refusing to acknowledge mistakes when caught is why they are dangerous. Hillary is the true danger because it is obvious she has and is the one with ambition, not Bill. I think Bill would have been content to stay in Little Rock forever and it is Hillary who pushed him into the WH.

  36. The video from two weeks ago is irrelevant. It is about what she does currently, not during her tenure at State.

    Facts are inconvenient things when you want to bash someone, but in 2009 when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State there were legitimate technical reasons and security concerns prohibiting government officials from setting up two emails accounts on a Blackberry or other device. It does’t matter whether you believe her explanation, but the facts of why two devices would be required are clear.


    1. “but the facts of why two devices would be required are clear”

      Which is totally irrelevant to the fact that she kept gov’t data on a private server. Illegally.

  37. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $73 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her income was $12184 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Article…….


  38. Now the democrat party shows what it is really about. If they stick with pathetic Hillary without a legit alternative it proves that they don’t give a crap about the country. She isn’t just a liar, she is a bad liar. She certainly does NOT have what it takes to lead the country.

  39. Planet of the apes. . Monkey see, monkey do. Hilary redux. Hilary fail !!!! Big time. Can a liar change her tune? Nope!

  40. Convenience dictates that she retire to Chapaqua, NY ,mucho pronto! And then just STFU.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.