Did Hillary Clinton Wipe Her Private Email Server Clean?

via Hillary Clinton / Twitter

That's what Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), who is running the House GOP's Benghazi investigation, said over the weekend. Via The Hill:

"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.

He said while it's "not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department."

…"Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," Gowdy said. 

Clinton and her team continue to maintain that they did everything necessary to turn over email records, but so far, her excuses and explanations for why it took so long, and why she relied entirely on a privately owned and run system outside of the control of the State Department, have been rather weak. 

Comments

[Illocust]

Yeah, the dems are already trying to scramble to defend this most recent action. Unfortunately all they've got is that we should trust her. Which doesn't hold up even within the democrat party base. Wonder how long until this implodes.

[AlmightyJB]

I disagree. Base does not care about this at all. This will never be more than a mole hill to the the general public as well. Mist people don't pay enough attention to know why they should care. It was craven politics and violates any pretense of government transpeancy, but she's a democrat so she will pay no price for it.

[jester]

Gorillas, not people, are in the mist.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Oook.

[kilroy]

*Jazz Hands*

RIP Terry Pratchett

[Jerryskids]

"Mist" is a fine German word that applies perfectly to Hillary and her supporters.

[AlmightyJB]

I disagree. Base does not care about this at all. This will never be more than a mole hill to the the general public as well. Mist people don't pay enough attention to know why they should care. It was craven politics and violates any pretense of government transpeancy, but she's a democrat so she will pay no price for it.

[C. Anacreon]

Our local paper this week had a letter-to-the-editor about the emails, which decried the situation as 'yet another fake scandal created by the pathetic Republicans to feed the half-wits who watch Fox News.' It then went on to say that Hillary's misogynist enemies 'will do anything to prevent a caring woman from becoming President".

This I'm sure represents the great majority of people who will support her for President no matter what. Good luck to anyone trying to counter that.

[AlmightyJB]

I disagree. Base does not care about this at all. This will never be more than a mole hill to the the general public as well. Mist people don't pay enough attention to know why they should care. It was craven politics and violates any pretense of government transpeancy, but she's a democrat so she will pay no price for it.

[AlmightyJB]

So I hate submit once and it posts twice, then I post something else and it adds a third post.

[Sevo]

Don't piss off the skwerls!

[GILMORE]

"AlmightyJB|2015/03/29 11:35:20|#5188955

I disagree. Base does not care about this at all. "

Well, the degree of 'caring' is always a fuzzy measure...but the polls show a sizable chunk give enough of a shit to want to see congress pursue independent investigations.... and 29% say their opinion of clinton is 'lowered'

Sure, that doesn't make D voters into Rs, but the point is that she aint exactly the second coming of the messiah to begin with - both the hard left proggys and the Union democrats have some serious issues with her that may make her special pull with women-voters a moot issue.

As noted below = she's a 'creepy old hag', and my gambling instincts tell me she's not even pulling as strong with women as the polling suggests. I think a lot of women say nice things in polls because they want to show Team Allegiance, but would be more than happy on voting day to stay home and let her lose, because she actually does really suck as a person and a politician.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

The dems I know plan on voting for her if she shows up on the ballot, and their given reason is "Because Bill Clinton was the best president we've ever had."

I barf a little when I hear that.

[Hyperion]

Sure it holds up. I've already heard lots of them saying stuff like 'Sure, she's a crook, but I still support her. What, am I going to vote for a Republican?'

This is honestly how most democrats are. You could resurrect Hitler and put a D by his name, they'd vote for him. Because else, a R gets elected and minorities are back in chains, women and children starving in the streets...

[Agammamon]

Well, its not like the R's are going to do anything different.

You could resurrect Reagan and put a (D) by his name and no Repub would touch him.

Unfortunately most 'big L' Libertarians are the same way.

Too much tribalism still left in humanity.

[Hyperion]

I consider myself a big L libertarian, and I'm still going to vote for Rand, even though he's not near the pure libertarian as say, a shreek.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

+8%

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

She's done.

[Sevo]

You are far more optimistic than me.

[AlmightyJB]

I don't think she'll be the nominee but not because of this. She old and moldy and stale which isn't going to fly as a dnc prez nominee.

[lap83]

I agree. The voting public is deeply superficial.

[CatoTheElder]

She certainly lacks the talent of the Anointed One to inspire the ignorati with Hope'n'Change.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

She has no talent whatsoever. She's tone-deaf, she's guileless, she's not likable or inspiring, she's not an engaging speaker.

The case for Hillary is basically this:

1) I was the First Lady during the Clinton years, and don't we all like those years?

2) I'm a woman, and it's a woman's turn now

[juris imprudent]

^ this. And this "turn" shit is just ridiculous, as prevalent as it seems to be,

[Atanarjuat]

1) I was the First Lady during the Clinton years, and don't we all like those years?

FWIW, I know someone who's positively giddy about "having Bill Clinton back in the White House", and I think that is probably a common sentiment among the diehard Democrat moron constituency.

[Rich]

I have yet to hear a Hillary supporter name *one thing* she has accomplished.

[Sevo]

Hey, that woman has a gold in the Coat-Tail-Riding competition!

[jester]

She stood by her man.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I'm guessing that the kind of people who could vote for Obama are not the sort to get hung up on stuff like "accomplishments". "Facts" and "history" bore them too. No, it's just feelings that matter to them (funny since they love to portray themselves as great intellectuals).

[Agammamon]

#1 is why she's remained popular all these years.

*Everybody* - including his enemies - loves Slick Willy. Clinton was popular, so she was popular - even though she was (and always had been) the hidden dagger to his smile.

[wareagle]

she was never popular, not outside the feminist club and not even all of them could rectify her claims to fame being marriage to a guy who got elected and marriage to a man who treated her like shit.

Willy was a politician and recalling him only serves to highlight what Obama is not. Clinton would buck his own folks to do things the public wanted, especially if they made sense like welfare reform, because he liked the sausage-making and understood that credit/history is largely a function of being there.

[tao 48]

Hillary Clinton is a horrifying control freak who has made a career of being unaccountable for anything. The idea that even one sane adult could wish her to be the most powerful person on earth is just mind-blowing.

[Hyperion]

She's done, just not with the core democrat base. They'll vote for whoever the candidate is, no matter what that candidate says or does.

She's done because she's a creepy old hag with the personality of a bag of pig shit. Independent voters, young voters, even most minority voters will not be attracted by her at all. She'll get the core democrat voters, the old time democrats, the progs, SJWs, other groups like that. It won't be enough.

The dems are desperate. Their only alternatives are O'Malley, a guy who is the sole reason that MD now has a GOP governor, and Biden, the court jester.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

The scary thing is, what is the female democrat vote ends up getting turned out for Liz Warren?

I'd rather have Hillary. And I'd rather take a hammer to my privates than have Hillary, so that's saying something.

[wareagle]

and what's better about Lizzie, whose claims to fame are being Fauxcahontas and a raging hypocrite. Maybe she'll explain how one becomes a millionaire on a Harvard salary.

[Old Man With Candy]

She's done.

Not even close. Barely brown on the edges.

This is shit that would send you or me to jail.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

We have found an exception to this rule.

[AlmightyJB]

If course she wiped her server. That was her plan all along. That's why she kept them there in the first place. Her lawyers already told her shecwas going to get away with it before she even made the decision.

[GILMORE]

Come on people, its not like there's any laws requiring retention of records by public officials to ensure that there is some transparency/oversight of government as well as a historical record of all official diplomatic communications. I mean, be real - who does the "Secretary of State" even talk to that might be important? And erasing documents after people inform you there's going to be an investigation isn't like 'a crime' or anything. You people are nuts.

[AlmightyJB]

Perjury is a crime too unless you're a democrat.

[juris imprudent]

Perjury is a crime for a Democrat - if you are out of favor with the Dems actually in power.

[Sevo]

G,
Dunno if you are old enough to have read the Nixon debacle in real-time, but his legal team was asked why he didn't burn the tapes;
'He'd have been impeached the next day by proclamation!', or some such. Shrill doesn't seem to have such issues.

[GILMORE]

"if you are old enough to have read the Nixon debacle in real-time, but his legal team was asked why he didn't burn the tapes;"

yes.

the law has long treated destruction of evidence as 'acknowledgement of guilt', and always made the penalties duly harsh even in contrast to the underlying charge.

Hillary seems to be playing chicken with the idea that a) this administration's DoJ will never allow anything to happen, and b) the voting public is so ignorant they'll accept the idea of a candidate that openly treats herself as 'above the law' and c) any aggressive pursuit of her by congress would be seen as "partisan pre-election meddling" that would harm GOP candidates.

some combination of the three

[John C. Randolph]

Obviously the commissar of the DoJ today is just as useless as Hillary was as the secretary of state, but it's entirely possible that she'll face a Republican in the DoJ before the statute of limitations runs out.

-jcr

[Agammamon]

Still won't make any difference. The Democratic party will run interference and, worst case for her, it peters out to nothing the same way Starr did.

It'll be:

She made a minor mistake
She turned over all relevant material
Why you keep bringing up old shit anyway

[Sevo]

"some combination of the three"
Agreed; that ol' V,R-W,C!

[Faceless Commenter]

Looking at your a b c, I'd say she's safely on third base.

[GILMORE]

/sarc

I think the better version was the popehat tweet

[Stormy Dragon]

There is, but it's one of those laws that seems to have been written with the assumption that merely because it exists, everyone will comply with it and thus provides no mechanism for making sure people comply.

An e-mail that qualifies as a record must be turned over to the National Archive and Records Administration. However, the person who evaluates whether each particular e-mail is or is not a record is the person that wrote it, and if they determine it's not a record they can delete it.

Now they're supposed to follow their corresponding record schedule to make this determination and can theoretically be charged with a crime for doing it incorrectly. But in practice since the e-mails they decided were not records have been deleted, there's no practical way to investigate this.

[GILMORE]

You don't know what you're talking about.

whatever you think about the 'records retention' minutae is far less the point than the fact that law was broken at the very outset by *actively preventing* the retention of records by moving all govt communications off of Govt-administrated hardware. She couldn't have "deleted/wiped" all copies of historical communications ex post facto long after leaving the dept.

the more important issue is the fact that all these records were under subpoena at the time they were 'destroyed'. The fact that they handed over some hundreds of records then deleted the electronic originals is itself a crime. The records themselves, not the 'paper version' were the actual evidence.

[sarcasmic]

Who is going to prosecute this violation of the law?

[GILMORE]

already noted above.

doesn't change the underlying 'destruction of evidence' issue, which someone else noted could be addressed by future DoJ; also, congress can do quite a bit in the meantime in the grey area between due-diligence and requesting justice follow up on other administrative queries. IOW, keep them busy keeping the issue alive, bringing increasing unpleasantness to the fore. While the liberal-leaning media will eventually cry "harassment", the public is surprisingly open to seeing congress pursue this issue. As noted = recent poll showed even plurality of democrats support an independent probe to see if there was any wrongdoing. And the willingness to destroy evidence is a sign that she's willing to face that charge by itself because of fear of even worse dirt under the rug.

[Stormy Dragon]

We should bring back the concept of private prosecution, so we don't have to depend on the DoJ to investigate the executive branch it's a part of.

[Hyperion]

Well, we clearly have 2 sets of laws. One for the peasants and one for the ruling class. The one for the ruling class says that you can do whatever you can get away with. And they get away with most things these days because they are all afraid that if they prosecute one of the chosen, that they will be next.

[Stormy Dragon]

You don't know what you're talking about.

I literally just finished my annual records training two weeks ago. When I write an e-mail that qualifies as a record, I look up the record series number in the office record management plan and put that at the end of the subject and save a copy to the records management system. If the e-mail is not a record I can delete it when I no longer need it.

If I start destroying records I can be prosecuted, but there's no actual third party that routinely reviews my decisions as to what is or isn't a record.

[GILMORE]

What does any of that matter when you've moved your official communications out of the managed-system?

You're acting as though the process was being followed *before* the discretionary decision to 'delete stuff'.

[Stormy Dragon]

Yes, but not following the process isn't a crime, it's just a violation of department policy. Destroying records IS a crime, but it's going to be near impossible to prove actual records were destroyed because she wasn't following the process.

It's like the opposite of a Catch-22.

[GILMORE]

The "dept policy" ceased to matter at the point that she started communicating exclusively on non-governmental resources.

You seem to think it remains relevant regardless. Everything is by default a record when you purposely avoid a process that retains any level of oversight at all.

and no = for the third time...

"it's going to be near impossible to prove actual records were destroyed"

Its *already* proven. Because they submitted X hundred emails to the benghazi committee, and when more were requested were told that nothing existed anymore. That they had even destroyed electronic originals of the things they'd already acknowledged as 'evidence'.

[Stormy Dragon]

Its *already* proven. Because they submitted X hundred emails to the benghazi committee, and when more were requested were told that nothing existed anymore. That they had even destroyed electronic originals of the things they'd already acknowledged as 'evidence'.

It's only destruction of evidence if some of those remaining e-mails related to Benghazi and thus were subject to the subpoena. Which it's impossible to prove because they've been destroyed.

If I demand you provide copies of any e-mails about your invisible unicorn, failure to provide any doesn't prove your involvement in an invisible unicorn conspiracy.

[GILMORE]

"It's only destruction of evidence if some of those remaining e-mails related to Benghazi and thus were subject to the subpoena"

Wrong = the existing emails - all of them - are the 'evidence'

and the paper copies were simply the records the clintons decided to submit. Destruction of any government communications while these communications records were under subpoena is a crime, regardless of their relevance to the specifics.

Besides, the things requested were made 'relevant' by the material submitted itself - i..e. original messages included in email chails provided. Destruction of documents *currently under review* is a crime.

You seem to think that your own failure to understand the law makes it a "catch-22".

[Stormy Dragon]

Destruction of any government communications while these communications records were under subpoena is a crime, regardless of their relevance to the specifics.

Yes, and if congress had subpoenaed all e-mails Hillary Clinton sent or received while secretary of state, they'd have her. But they didn't. They subpoenaed all e-mails related to Benghazi.

So they can't charge her with destroying communications covered by the subpoena unless they show they actually were covered by the subpoena, i.e. that the destroyed e-mails were related to Benghazi. Which they can't do because the contents of the e-mails have been destroyed.

[GILMORE]

"if congress had subpoenaed all e-mails Hillary Clinton sent or received while secretary of state, they'd have her. But they didn't. They subpoenaed all e-mails related to Benghazi."

this isn't even 'technically' true. They subpoenaed all of her communications 'during the period' of the benghazi events, *as well as* everything even incidentally related to Libya. They didn't even receive anything plausible to meeting this request. Clinton council had requested "extra time" to locate said materials, only to never cough *anything* up in the end, claiming it was all 'destroyed'.

which isn't even the larger context here = You've already shown you don't really understand the most basic elements of what "subpoenaed records" entails. Just because something isnt' identified beforehand in a request doesn't mean it isnt protected. The entirety of her state-dept communications would be required to be *preserved* in the context of any investigation, whatever its focus. Your claim that "there's no evidence because the evidence has been destroyed" is the very reason that destroying *any potentially relevant materials* while under subpoena *is* a crime. When specific documents are requested, destroying "everything else" is a crime *on top* of the act of having destroyed the original copies of the 'requested' docs (which she did as well)

You're wrong in multiple dimensions.

[GILMORE]

" they can't charge her with destroying communications covered by the subpoena unless they show they actually were covered by the subpoena, i.e. that the destroyed e-mails were related to Benghazi."

For the 5th or 6th time....

they're claiming that they destroyed *even the actual electronic records of documents already submitted*

i.e. the stuff the clintons consider their "exculpatory evidence*? ~300 "benghazi emails"?

That stuff was just the material they themselves had *claimed* was 'relevant'. And destroying the original files is *(@#&$ crime Because there's no proof that the paper records they submitted were in any way real. or that these accurately represented the sum of all requested info.

ADDITIONAL TO THAT= destroying *anything else* is a crime as well. as per the repeatedly above explained reasons.

Christ, are you really this fucking dumb? 4+-iterations of the same explanation? And you claim to have "training" in this sort of thing.

[bostonaod]

Isn't destruction of the electronic records what Gilmore is getting at? Not that there were necessarily additional undisclosed emails but that the deletion of the server emails behind the paper copies already submitted would be a problem (the paper copies could have been altered/redacted etc)

[GILMORE]

"bostonaod|2015/03/29 13:28:53|#5189086~new~

Isn't destruction of the electronic records what Gilmore is getting at?"

Both.

- they destroyed existing material they'd already acknowledged as "relevant"
- they destroyed the source of information which the committee had declared subject to subpoena - whether relevant or not, destroying potentially relevant information *after* having been subpoena'd is a crime.

whether or not it *is* relevant does not need to be proven. the destruction of evidence is the crime. that's *why* its a crime, in fact.

[GILMORE]

Also - I particularly enjoy the lawyer's, "Because I say so"-assertion that no actual "proof of claim" is actually necessary

"Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since 'no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

"We have a search warrant for your home"
"Officers, there is no reason for a search here, because there is no meth lab in my basement OR my garage. But thank you for your interest."

See = its 'pointless' to turn over hardware, because we already told you we deleted all the data from them. Even though the point of some of that hardware was to *prevent permanent deletions and ensure there were backups*... and even though almost everyone knows data can be recovered unless there was a serious attempt to permanently destroy the hardware beyond any possible use.... BECAUSE THESE ARENT THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR

[sssbobbyr]

I have been wondering what kind of "influence" one might have over Clinton when, after all the emails she has surrendered are made public, and a congressperson or foreign official comes up with some communique not included? That could be rather unfortunate for a sitting president.

[GILMORE]

you're also skipping past the 'more important' point i made, re: "subpoena"

[RussianPrimeMinister]

I literally just finished my annual records training two weeks ago but I don't understand that destroying evidence during an active investigation is a serious crime.

FTFY

[GILMORE]

lol

[jay_dubya]

government employees ftw!

[Sevo]

"However, the person who evaluates whether each particular e-mail is or is not a record is the person that wrote it,"

Bullshit.

[mr lizard]

If it was a privately controlled server than this is a Sarbanes Oxley violation. And I hate that law, but all the more reason they should bring it with her.

Team Red needs to just bust out the special prosecutor. This is an open and shut Sarbox case.

[John C. Randolph]

AFAIK the Clinton Foundation isn't a publicly-traded corporation. Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't apply.

-jcr

[trshmnster the terrible]

Also, she wasn't destroying fish so the government doesn't care.

[juris imprudent]

I like how the article concludes that SCotUS put the hurt on those prosecutors - as though they were fired and/or disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up you sexist pigs! This is a total faux-scandal because if a man deleted some emails, nobody would say anything! That Hillary has to defend herself at all is evidence of systemic patriarchal repression of women everywhere!

Hillary 2016!

What difference, at this point, does it matter?

[lap83]

"This is a total faux-scandal because if a man deleted some emails, nobody would say anything!"

Unless that man was a Republican..but that's speaking truth to power, or something.

[John C. Randolph]

So, whatever she had on those disks was so incriminating that she's willing to risk doing time for destroying evidence.

-jcr

[sarcasmic]

Really? Who is going to prosecute her? Yeah. Exactly.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

There's a chance that she had a ton of sexy images in her e-mail, and didn't want to go down the same scandal road her husband did.

An entire server filled with sexual images of Hillary Clinton. Maybe she did us a favor.

[sarcasmic]

Laws only matter if they are enforced. In this case no one will enforce the law, so it doesn't matter.

[DK]

If I was Gowdy, I'd continue to press. Subpoena the physical servers (including backup drives/tapes). We might then get further Lois Lerner-type denials of "the drives were destroyed" or "There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locust's. It wasn't my fault!".

I would also doubt the competency of Hillary's people to actually wipe the drives - they probably just hit delete.

[BigT]

doubt the competency of Hillary's people to actually wipe the drives

Back in October I might have agreed with this, but now that the spotlight is on I am sure she has made proper arrangements (provided the whole thing is not a ruse). Isn't a few passes by a strong magnet enough to make them unrecoverable?

[Hyperion]

Just smash it, dispose of it, and replace with new drive. Problem solved. Not if it was you or I who did it, we'd go to prison. But for Hillary, this is sufficient.

[Faceless Commenter]

This would open her up to a new level of prosecution, I think. A brand new hard drive can be plainly identified as such, which means certainty that she destroyed the original hard drive, which should mean another level of spoliation or concealment or theft or what have you.

But what's this I read about the hard drive actually being in a Huntsville, Alabama data center? Hillary set up her own server all right, but I've also heard that some geeks determined it was remote (introducing another possible lie of hers since she said it was "safe" because the Secret Service partied outside guarded her Chappaqua home).

[Koko the Monkey]

This would open her up to a new level of prosecution, I think.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Faceless Commenter]

Oh, I mean a whole new level of potential, theoretical, hypothetical, imaginary prosecution.

[Hyperion]

The emails will be recoverable even if they wiped the drive. She best be making sure that drive meets with an unfortunate accident, like being struck repeatedly by a sledge hammer and thrown into the river.

But, she knows no one is going to prosecute her anyway, so she doesn't much care. The behavior of people in high government offices, during the Obama administration, clearly shows that they no longer have any fear of being held accountable for anything.

[Rich]

Subpoena the physical servers (including backup drives/tapes).

Subpoena the physical server *administrators*. These clowns are not going to go to the mat like Huma Abedin.

[Faceless Commenter]

If those admins can be ID'd.

[PapayaSF]

Subpoena the email records of her closest aides and consultants.

[Old Man With Candy]

Subpoena the email records of her closest aides and consultants.

"Oh, too bad, those all burned up in a fire."

Al Sharpton taught her well.

[Faceless Commenter]

In Hillary's case it would be the aides and consultants who burned up in the fire.

[MJGreen]

"We moved the server to an apartment building on 2nd Avenue and 7th street on March 25. And then the next day, well..."

[Aloysious]

Did Hillary Clinton Wipe Her Private Email Server Clean?

Yes.

This will in no way cause her fevered base to vote for another Democrat, or even rethink *why* they support that woman.

[Paul.]

Did Hillary Clinton Wipe Her Private Email Server Clean?

I've clearly missed some stories here... her "private email server". So her outside email service wasn't a yahoo or gmail, but a server-class PC running Exchange she kept in her own basement with her neighbor's jr high kid running it?

[GILMORE]

something like that.

as some others have noted = the obvious question none of the investigators have asked is, "who administrated this 'server'?" and then subpoena'ed *that motherfucker*.

you have to assume Bill&Hill; had some person they referred to for their IT support. And that person would have had to had some ability to manage security, backups, continuity, etc. It sure as shit wasn't a govt employee. So who was it?

[Faceless Commenter]

Hillary (laughing): I don't really know! I asked someone if I could have a separate device, and my staff set me up with clintonemail-dot-com! (raises hands, Jesus-like)

Investigator: So they might have gotten some guy off the Moscow craigslist?

[RussianPrimeMinister]

as some others have noted = the obvious question none of the investigators have asked is, "who administrated this 'server'?" and then subpoena'ed *that motherfucker*.

I'm starting to doubt that anybody on capitol hill actually understands how computers even work. Computer stuff just happens, why should they take any notice of how?

[Heedless]

It's the only time they believe in the invisible hand.

[Koko the Monkey]

If she's the only one using it she doesn't really need a system administrator. Any more than you need a system administrator for your home wifi router.

[GILMORE]

i'm making the reasonable assumption that as "secretary of state" the necessity of 100%., 24/7 access requirements/continuity.... even in event of power-outages, hacks.... and regular maintenance/updates of security.... they would have someone to guarantee things were working.

if they didn't, well, its even worse - since Hillary would be claiming that she was individually responsible for setting up and maintaining her own extra-legal communications resources and can consequently answer any questions about its set up, security, and how she went about later 'destroying' these records.

[Carl ?s the level]

A private server apparently running Windows Server 2008 R2. One might assume Exchange, but I dunno.

[Lady Bertrum]

Damn. I hate her.

[Rich]

*** huffily ***

And you call yourself a "lady"!

[Crusty Juggler]

Cat fight!

Hillary is loathsome, though. You cannot trust a word that comes out of her mouth.

[jester]

Name recognition. Even Wiener was winning the mayorship based on name recognition until...

[John C. Randolph]

Hillary needs more victim cards. Maybe she should announce Carlos Danger as her running mate to pick up the hispanic vote.

-jcr

[Faceless Commenter]

Poll:

Do you think that if Ted Cruz was the AG for a Republican president he would investigate her and prosecute if appropriate?

Do you think this whole thing is happening because someone in the Odministration wants her out in 2017 (although not in jail)?

[SusanM]

1 - No. They owe the Obama administration for not looking into the Dubya administrations human rights abuses.

2 - Unlikely but not impossible. Who else could they really have in mind? Sanders is too old, Warren doesn't want to have anything to do with it and everyone figures Biden's too much of a dingbat to win.

[wareagle]

1) kinda difficult to prosecute the predecessor for abuses when your administration has either doubled down on the ones in place or created new ones. In other words, you cannot justify hand-ringing over water-boarding when you have made drone-killing a regular thing.

2) the animus is there and it's not going anywhere. The Clinton memory against enemies is famously long and I'm not sure Obama is a minor-leaguer where this is concerned. Besides, is BO gave a shit about the party, he wouldn't be facing two GOP-led chambers.

[SusanM]

As to the second, it's possible. But, as I've said before, If The Big O really were some evil, grudge-holding genius rather that just President Muffley with a tan, we'd have seen it by now.

The first, well, they pretty much punted on that right from the start, long before they had time to double down. Unless the double-down was planned all along...

[PapayaSF]

#1: Yes.

#2: Maybe. Clearly Obama is not her friend, and clearly he doesn't care much whether Democrats (other than himself) win elections. The idea that Hillary is being sabotaged to make way for someone even more left wing is plausible.

Heck, it's even plausible that he wants the GOP to win in 2016. That way they can get blamed for the failure of Obamacare, the collapse of the dollar, a nuclear war in the Mideast, etc. Obama can pose as the Lightbringer whose legacy was destroyed by those evil Republicans.

[sssbobbyr]

I think you've got it. Keep this economy, basically just the stock market, churning until there is a republican house, Senate and Prez elect. Tank the market, institute ocare mandates finally leave the results for the incoming administration. House and /or Senate flip in 2018. Dems win all three in 2020 and spend eight years blaming it on the one term republican who probably accomplished nothing but a lot of compassionate conservative spending.

Reconsidering whether Hillary '16 isn't the long run right choice just to make her eat it and hopefully keep voting liberty minded people into house and Senate.

[Faceless Commenter]

Can someone help me thread my way back to that original revelation?

Someone leaked the story to the NY Times, right? But who supposedly was entrusted with that info? I have the impression it was held within a Senate committee, which does have Dems on it, who could have told Valerie Jarrett . . .

I mean, how would the White House have known, without Senate moles?

I like your Yes.

[John]

I think Jarrett is the one who leaked the story.

[Koko the Monkey]

It wasn't a leak, it was discovered by a House committee when the State Dept finally responded to their records request.

[John]

The fact that the server was wiped was discovered that way. The fact that Hillary had her own private email server was leaked by Jerrett.

[Koko the Monkey]

No, that was discovered by the committee too.

[John]

No. It was leaked.

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/o.....l-scandal/

[GILMORE]

I don't think "author of book called "Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas" cites 'anonymous sources' alleging secret Jarret plot.... is quite the 'slam dunk' you seem to think.

The fact that clinton had an alternate address came out in late january when State Dept officials were collecting lots of historical clinton documents together in order to comply with new records-keeping act requirements. From the original NYT story - ""the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency's records.""

It then discovered that - not only were there large numbers of records classified as "personal emails" by the Sec State... but that her "personal email" was in fact her only email address.

How did the NYT find out about it? who knows. But it wouldn't *require* some white house intervention to draw attention to the issue. more remarkable is that the Times decided to 'go big' with the story at all, rather than bury it.

[John]

I am starting to think your last paragraph is the truth. I think the media and the top Dems know Obama has been a complete disaster and that a lot of shoes are going to drop and they are just hoping to get his sorry ass out of office so they do and get a Republican in office they can blame the whole mess on.

[Koko the Monkey]

If Obama wanted to sabotage Hillary, why doesn't he just sick the DOJ on her?

[Faceless Commenter]

That's why I added "although not in jail." Just out of politics, not in jail. If they have want a Democrat ABH, it wouldn't be smart to damage the party that badly.

[Greg F]

If Obama wanted to sabotage Hillary, why doesn't he just sick the DOJ on her?

Patience grasshopper.

[HazelMeade]

#2.

But WHO?
You think Obama wants Warren to be his successor?
If there is anyone, Obama probably wants to anoint another black person. Maybe Michelle is planning to run for president. LOL. (No really, that's a scary thought).

He may have someone in the wings, but it's not going to be an older white liberal woman. It's going to be a minority left-liberal "community organizer" type.

Then again, I have trouble seeing Obama having sufficiently strong relationships with anyone in political to bring them up and back them as a successor.

[GILMORE]

#1 Yes. If Ted Cruz was AG. But frankly the idea of a very-partisan politician being nominated as AG would probably discredit any subsequent 'investigations'

#2 Do i think the Obama/Progressive dems have historical bad-blood with the Clinton Dems? Yes.

But i don't think they 'want her out', or are using the Email thing as a torpedo strategy.

I think it was aired because it was inevitable and they want to try and nix the issue ASAP before the campaign gets into full swing. However, like many "intentional" Obama/Democratic strategies, they've blown up in their face and the narrative hasn't been controlled the way they wanted. See = well, everything Obama does. The Bergdahl thing being one the most retarded examples of "something the admin *purposely drew attention to* thinking they could spin it their own way, but immediately went tits up, pear shaped, etc

[GILMORE]

- on that last point...

I don't think it was "leaked" at all. As Koko noted - it just 'came out' in committee, and I think everyone involved said "deal with it now rather than 6 months from now when it will do damage".

I think the comments about Jarrett on it were probably just that - remarks made about Obama insiders which were non-complimentary.

[Faceless Commenter]

It did "come out," but it sat there for quite a while before it was publicized.

[Koko the Monkey]

Right now, the Dems' only reason not to nominate Hillary over this would be electability concerns. In a presidential election year:

45% of the electorate is going to vote for the Democrat no matter what.
40% of the electorate is going to vote for the Republican no matter what.

The remaining 15%, often called "independents" are in fact mostly just apathetic turds who generally don't pay attention to political matters unless they are worried about losing their job or having their kids abducted by child molesters. Most will have their eyes glaze over after about 15 seconds when you try to explain why what Hillary did with the email server was wrong, and dismiss whatever you're saying as irritating partisan politicking that they hate so much.

[John]

I don't think so. That 15% will see it as confirmation that she is the shady hag they always thought she was. They vote on likability more than anything. And Hillary isn't likable and this case feeds that notion.

[John]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....01776.html

You read these sorts of things and you start to think Obama really is a traitor. And he might be, but I doubt it. What I think is going on is the Democrats have devolved into full on primative people. They believe in the magic power of words. The fact that words only reflect reality to the extent we make them, is now fully beyond them.

To give an example of what I mean, every good Democrat will tell you that the CRA bans racial quotas and their existence is a right wing lie. It is true that the act does use the words that ban quotas. Those words, however, don't mean anything because the act did not strike down Duke Power. For years I thought Democrats were just being dishonest. And I think the Congress creatures who wrote the CRA renewal in the early 1990s were. They put in language they knew was meaningless but made a good sound bite. Now, I think Progs are not lying. They honestly think that since the act says the magic words it actually means that in the real world.

In the case of Iran, the magic words are negotiation and agreement. They are negotiating and are going to get an agreement that says Iran won't get nukes. The reality that that agreement will virtually guarantee that Iran will get nukes, doesn't matter. They will have negotiated and signed an agreement. The rituals have been followed and the magic words spoken. That is all that matters.

[Koko the Monkey]

You think that's bad? How bout this presidential message to the Iranian people?

Hello! To everyone celebrating Nowruz [Iranian New Year] ?across the United States and in countries around the world?Nowruz Mubarak.

For thousands of years, this has been a time to gather with family and friends and welcome a new spring and a new year. Last week, my wife Michelle helped mark Nowruz here at the White House. It was a celebration of the vibrant cultures, food, music and friendship of our many diaspora communities who make extraordinary contributions every day here in the United States. We even created our own Haft Seen, representing our hopes for the new year.

I do find it hard to believe he was celebrating Iranian holidays last year at the White House, and assume this is just another pandering lie from Obama. But it's sad when you have to assume the guy's lying not to get concerned.

[John]

I think they are that stupid. They honestly think that doing that gets the Iranians to trust us and be reasonable. They are delusional.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Maybe they sent Iran an I-Pod pre-loaded with Obama speeches.

[wareagle]

and it may have come out now because it will have long since blown over by 2016. Look at what has happened with every other questionable decisions or outright scandal among Dems. Getting it out now ensures that it is treated as old news when it actually matters.

[John]

That is the plan. The problem is that as Gilmore points out above, it has gotten out of control and done way more damage to Hillary than they thought it would. It doesn't matter if it is old news in 2016 if it irreparably wounds Hillary with the electorate.

[Koko the Monkey]

Weren't you just arguing that Obama was using it to try to derail Hillary?

[John]

It could be that too. I can't read Obama's mind. But whatever it is, I don't think it is some "this is old news story" that is going to be forgotten by next year. I think this is gravely hurt her chances of election.

[wareagle]

no reason both things cannot be true. Camp Obama may be intent on sabotage. Camp Hillary will be claiming it's old news.

[Koko the Monkey]

No way. The Obama camp knows how campaigns work. It's the only thing his group is competent at.

[John]

Not really. They have never helped any other candidate get elected. They won their own elections but that was because they had the complete protection of the media.

[wareagle]

then it could be a case of too clever by half. Every scandal that has emerged with this administration has been delayed, obfuscated, and otherwise fucked with in the hope that people (led by the media) would either grow weary of the issue, be distracted by the next shiny object, or see it as partisan piling on. I never took Hillary that seriously in the first place mostly because her lone qualifications are her last name and the absence of a penis. Had she been such a slam dunk, Obama would have lost in '08.

[jay_dubya]

this is so unbelievably illegal in so many different ways. this is screaming for indictment.

[HazelMeade]

That's pretty much what I would have expected of Hillary Clinton, or any other corrupt official attempting to hide their illegal activities from the authorities.

The only difference is that Clinton has an army of venal, dishonest, corrupt admirers who are willing to help cover for her.

[TxJack 112]

Hillary is a power hungry, lying, dangerous woman. She will do anything for power including stay married to a skirt chasing yahoo like Bill. Her use of a private server was nothing more than another example of the Clinton belief that they are above the law the rest of us live by because they are special. She did not want a trail that could be followed which is why she did not use a government account. With a government account, you have no expectation of privacy and every thing is public record. She knew the Clinton Foundation would take money from foreign governments with horrible rights records and if that info became public it would hurt her political aspirations. All you need to know about Hillary Clinton is summed up in the Travelgate scandal. The records subpenaed by Congress disappeared for two years only to suddenly be discovered in a box in the Clinton's WH bedroom. Surprisingly, there was no information pointing to any wrongdoing. Sorta of like when all the Whitewater records in the Rose Law Firm disappeared without a trace...