Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Keeps Making Untrue Claims About Her Use of a Private Email Server

The Democratic frontrunner's untruthful responses to the private email scandal prove she can't be trusted.

|

Hillary Clinton/Twitter

The most important thing to understand about the continuing scandal over Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server while serving as the Secretary of State is that almost everything she has claimed about the matter has turned out to be not true.

After questions arose about the unusual arrangement, which was in violation of State Department rules requiring employees to use only official government email accounts for both security and records retention purposes, Clinton held a press conference in March to address the matter. During the conference, she claimed, among other things, that there was no classified information on the account. 

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material," she said.

The statement was clear and unequivocal. It was also not true.

When the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies reviewed just a small sample of the emails produced from her server—forty out of tens of thousands—the IG found that four were, in fact, classified

Yesterday night it was revealed that two of those emails were classified Top Secret.

Given that 10 percent of the emails in the small batch examined by the IG were classified, it's more than likely that there are many, many more of the communications on that server are classified too. Clinton claimed that "there is no classified material," but what we know is that there's definitely some, and almost certainly quite a lot of it.

Since her initial statement in March, Clinton's campaign has updated her story. Her claim is now that none of the emails were classified at the time they were sent. "She followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials," campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill told Politico in July. "Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted."

A joint statement in July from IGs at the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence indicates otherwise.

"[The four classified] emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department," the statement says. "Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system." [Emphasis added.]

The Democratic presidential candidate agreed yesterday to turn over the server on which the emails were stored, as well as a thumb drive held by her lawyer containing copies of the emails, over to federal authorities. The handoff is itself a kind of turnabout for Clinton, who said in March that she would not provide access to the server. 

C-SPAN

It's not clear that much will come of it, given that the server is said to have been wiped clean after Clinton handed over paper copies of  emails from the server—emails culled and selected by Clinton loyalists—to the Department of State. More, perhaps, will come from the growing investigation by the State Department IG into how communications "hardware and software" were used by senior State Department officials during Clinton's time there. But much remains unclear about that investigation, including as a McClatchy report notes, "exactly who and what is being investigated." Investigators appear to be looking into behavior by Clinton's top aides, but not Clinton herself.

The important takeaway from this story so far, however, comes not from any particular findings or conclusions of the investigations, but from Clinton's pattern of dissembling, untruthful responses. 

In addition to falsely stating that there was "no classified information" on her email server, Clinton has also claimed that "vast majority" of her work emails went to government employees and email accounts and were thus "captured and preserved immediately" on the State Department's records system—even though the State Department's auto-archive system didn't work until February of this year.

Clinton also claimed in March that she carried just one phone for "convenience," but weeks earlier said she carries two phones, as well as two iPads, describing herself not as a convenience-minded traveler but as "like two steps short of a hoarder."

Asked by a reporter about the firing of a State Department ambassador for his email use, she pushed back on the idea that he'd been let go for relying on a personal email account; a report on the firing describes his "nonuse of commercial email for official government business" as a factor.

Clinton initially refused to let an independent examiner have access to her email server, saying it contained personal communications between Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Yet Bill Clinton has, by his own account, sent just two emails in his life.

She declared that by turning over paper copies of emails from her server she'd gone "above and beyond" what was required, saying she "had no obligation to do any of that." This was not true either; she did have an obligation to hand over those emails.

She objected to a CNN reporter's assertion that she'd received a subpoena regarding her emails, saying "I've never had a subpoena." You can see the complete subpoena right here.

What Hillary Clinton has proven with her responses to the many legitimate questions raised by this story is that when called to account for unusual and unauthorized actions in her capacity as a senior public official, she responds with misleading statements, distortions, convenient excuses, and a general sense of irritation and entitlement—anything, in other words, but the clear and unambiguous truth. Which is to say that she has proven that not only that she is willing to secretly engage in risky, unauthorized, and decidedly non-transparent behavior as a public official, but that she cannot be trusted to honestly explain herself when she is caught. 

NEXT: Stomping on Free Speech in Virginia

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. There is no way the head of the Department of State for four years sent out tens of thousands of emails with nothing classified in them. That I’ve seen media outlets and ‘security experts’ put this forth as plausible just shows how much shit they are willing to shovel for Democrats.

    1. And if true, is it supposed to be a reassuring claim? “The Secretary of State just didn’t do her job the whole time”?

      1. Well, we know that already. Perhaps she should focus on her incompetence in office. Not like anyone cares about that, anyway.

        She’s an admitted felon, and we’re still talking about her as a candidate. Totally insane. And we have a known flake leading the polls on the other side. America is in such a great place right now.

        1. She’s an admitted felon, and we’re still talking about her as a candidate. Totally insane.

          And this is the favorably oversimplified version.

          She’s admitted to multiple felonies, not to mention even more regular lies and deception, and there’s virtually no talk of filing charges as she is the current reigning party’s heir apparent against a field 15 guys who, together, struggle to top Donald Trump politically.

          1. Yeah, but what I really care about is, did she ever cause a traffic slow down on a bridge????

          2. I’d rather see Marion Barry as the D nominee.

            1. “Vote Barry: Hookers and blow for all!”

              1. Blow is far too classy for Marion Barry. He was caught hitting that crack pipe.

            2. Being dead, he’s only slightly more qualified.

        2. America’s Idiocracy moment is finally here.

          1. I heard Brawndo was on sale!!!!!

            1. How far are we from an openly authoritarian government? We’re clearly in the transition phase right now, with more overt violations of the Constitution without even the cover of judicial reasoning to justify them.

              1. I kinda hope that we get Bernie elected so that we can get to the Civil War sequel while guns are still legal.

                1. When guns are made illegal, there will be “civil” war.

                  If anything else causes it before that, then the authoritarians will really prove to be as stupid as they have been acting lately…

                  By “lately” I mean “from the beginning of time”.

            2. It’s got electrolytes! It’s what plants crave!

              1. Shit. I know shit’s bad right now, with all that starving bullshit, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.

                1. South Carolina Representative #1: That’s what you said last time, dipshit!
                  South Carolina Representative #2: Yeah, I got a solution, you’re a dick! South Carolina, what’s up!

            3. The thirst mutilator?! Yesss

            4. It’s got what plants need…electrolytes

            5. It’s got what plants need…electrolytes

    2. A panel guest on Fox finally said the same thing yesterday. There are two choices, she’s lying or she wasn’t doing her job.

      1. Why cant it be both?

        1. At this point, what difference does it make?

          1. Well played, sir.

          2. Should be “What difference, at this point, does it make”? Note the nuance.

    3. And those are simply the emails her staffers didn’t scrub from the curated collection they handed over. The undertaking was either slipshod and they let a few (likely thousands) slip through the cracks, or Clinton had much, much worse purged from the bunch.

      1. My guess is that there were a whole lot of dodgy emails and they spent hundreds of hours removing the ones that would obviously get her into a deep scandal. It probably never even occurred to them to worry about the Security classification.

        1. Yeah, that’s my thinking.

          They were scrubbed to get the bribery and influence peddling out. Not to get rid of classified emails.

          1. I kinda get the impression the secret server was supposed to stay secret; but then when caught out there was a rush job of broad search terms and bulk deletions before printing out the others, then wiping the server.

            Two unmentioned things:

            1. How inept are Republican committees? Years and years of digital document digging on Hillary, and nobody ever looked or asked about email addresses? Bitch would not be running for President right now if someone had asked this question eighteen months ago.

            2. Where are the copies? Hillary is not exactly tech-savvy obviously; and if she has two iPads etc. she has undoubtedly, unwittingly, synced totality of her accounts to iCloud and possibly other PC’s as backups. Hillary’s version of the Nixon tapes are sitting in back corner of some data center right now, just needing her password.

            1. Or they needed to keep at least some in to show she’d been doing her job. I mean if there were NO emails regarding the situation in, say, Libya, then people would say “Why isn’t she emailing someone about this?”. Then of course someone would know that she did send or receive emails about Libya (the other party and all the ccs). So scrubbing them all isn’t practical. Even if nobody recognized that a particular email wasn’t sent they’d be able to do the maths. If someone sends her an email once a week, get one every 2 weeks, and knows that there are dozens or hundreds of people in their approximate position, they’d be able to figure out how many emails there should be.

            2. They’ve asked and asked and asked, and subpoenaed and subpoenaed.

        2. Or they needed to keep at least some in to show she’d been doing her job. I mean if there were NO emails regarding the situation in, say, Libya, then people would say “Why isn’t she emailing someone about this?”. Then of course someone would know that she did send or receive emails about Libya (the other party and all the ccs). So scrubbing them all isn’t practical. Even if nobody recognized that a particular email wasn’t sent they’d be able to do the maths. If someone sends her an email once a week, get one every 2 weeks, and knows that there are dozens or hundreds of people in their approximate position, they’d be able to figure out how many emails there should be.

      2. They wouldn’t “delete” emails. They would (and most likely have) overwrite every part of the disk with 1’s or 0’s.

        If Hillary is dumb enough to simply “delete” files, we will have all her emails back in a few weeks / months.

        Source: My career in cyber / digital forensics.

        1. Your source is a little out of date. Overwriting is good, but the only method reliable enough to keep FBI/NSA from recovering the data is running the disks through a ball mill.

          1. Her personal IT guy, assuming he’s not as dumb as a brick, will simply swap out the hard drive with a spare of the same vintage. He’s probably got some other servers of that model. So, pull out a hard drive (or drives assuming it was RAIDed). Run a thorough MilSpec disk clean. Of course, the FBI will still be able to read some of the underlying data, but it won’t actually have any incriminating data, since it came from a different server.

            Then do a selective restore from back up tapes. Just restore the OS, Email program, Anti-Virus, etc but no data files. Then restore some carefully vetted data files with nothing incriminating in them.

            Then you wipe the whole thing again.

            Then you give the hard drive to the FBI team.

  2. It’s funny … I think Hillary would be a great neighbor or co-worker — if she weren’t seduced by power, if she were just a housewife or retiree or ordinary worker with no power.

    No idea why I have that feeling. It certainly doesn’t apply to the real world Hillary. I don’t feel the same about Bill or most politicians. But for some reason, I think Hillary is just an ordinary schlub seduced by the dark side.

    Weird. And I do recognize this means I probably need to turn in my handle and start a new life. Probably head for Witness Protection.

    1. Scarecrow and Hillary sittin’ in a tree…

      1. Bill’s with an intern gettin’ busy….

      2. Now that’s just Ewwwwww.

    2. No. If she were just a housewife, she’d be head of the homeowner’s association, trying to take over the PTA via a Coup d’Etat, and calling the cops every time she saw a car she didn’t recognize drive down the street.

      1. You know, I’d watch that show…

    3. It’s funny … I think Hillary would be a great neighbor or co-worker —

      It’s funny, I get the feeling that she’s got ice water in her veins. Those cold, dead eyes convey no warmth or compassion whatsoever, and I bet the people who know her personally and interact with her away from the cameras and spotlights, if pressed, would tell you the same thing.

      But who knows, you may be right, maybe she bakes a mean apple pie and plays a deadly game of bridge.

      1. deadly game of bridge

        So THAT’S what happened to Vince Foster!

        1. So THAT’S what happened to Vince Foster!

          I picture her gently laying a joker face up on the table, her cold, dead eyes never leaving his. At the sight of it, he breaks into a cold sweat. Behind him, quiet as death, a man steps out of the shadows.

          1. There are no jokers in bridge. There are trumps.

            1. Trump is a joker.

      2. Maybe she plays a mean game of bridge and bakes a deadly apple pie.

        FTFY

        1. Maybe she plays a mean game of bridge and bakes a deadly apple pie.

          FTFY

          Ha, you’re right, much more fitting.

      3. Yeah, her eyes creep me out. http://www.isthatbaloney.com/w…..-hag-7.jpg

        1. Yeah, her eyes creep me out.

          I wish I had some Ambien, because I’m going to need some help falling asleep tonight. So thanks a lot for that.

      4. “…I bet the people who know her personally and interact with her away from the cameras and spotlights, if pressed, would tell you the same thing.”

        What I have heard them say is that she is one mean-ass, ruthless, cold bitch and you do not want to be on her shit list.

        1. What I have heard them say is that she is one mean-ass, ruthless, cold bitch and you do not want to be on her shit list.

          Years ago, I heard Neal Boortz (FWIW) describe a meeting he had with the Clintons. This was while he was still in office. He described Bill Clinton as very nice, very friendly; an open and engaging guy and someone you instantly like. She, on the other hand, sucked all the warmth out of the room with her mere presence, and that when she smiled, it didn’t reach her eyes.

          1. You know you just came real close to describing a Dementor, right?

            1. You silly fantasy geeks with your Lord of The Rings references!

              1. Come to think of it, the wraiths in LoR do bear a resemblance to the Dementors.

                1. Sheee-it. Dat bitch gets elected Pres-o-dint, dey be renaming the White House to “Dol Guldur”, know what I’m sayin’?

          2. Can you just imagine the level of bitterness when this race isn’t “her turn” either?

            Claire Underwood has nothing on this woman.

      5. she’s got ice water in her veins. Those cold, dead eyes convey no warmth or compassion whatsoever,

        Explains Bill’s skirt chasing and Hilary’s not giving a shit about it.

    4. There’s a reason her hometown wants to name a public toilet after her.

    5. I think you’ve got it backwards. Bill and Hillary are both lying scumbags, but Bill can charm anyone. I hated him when he was in office, his “sincere” face made me want to censored wood chipper, but I bet in person the “aw shucks” would be irresistible. I direct the Simpsons episode where Homer parties with Bill is pretty accurate.
      I get the feeling that Hillary has become a genuinely unpleasant person.

    6. Have firsthand accounts from family who dealt with Hilldog on a regular basis (they’re employed at a certain federal agency.) Besides story after story about treating subordinates like shit, there was much reference to mental health issues.

  3. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  4. “…almost everything she has claimed about the matter has turned out to be not true….”

    Peter, you misspelled “a lie”.

  5. Eh, all she has to do is hold out long enough to get elected. Then she can pardon herself.

    1. That brings up interesting possible alternate timeline of Barack pulling a midnight pardon for an indicted Hillary come late 2016.

      1. Clinton gets the pardon if she gets elected.

        Obama justifies it by saying he’s doing it to protect the presidency from “more Republican witch hunts.”

        1. The pardon is something worth talking about. If she doesn’t get elected . . . what are the chances Bo eats her pardon?

    2. Fat chance. There’s nothing there to pardon. It’s phony scandals all the way down.

  6. The ultimate defense is that her use of a private system, her unilateral review and culling of records, and her handling of classified information were all authorized by the Secretary of State.

    You read the prediction here first, folks.

    1. Heh. It is telling that Obumbles hasn’t stepped forward and authorized just that. Or prosecuted her.

      I am sure he would love to see her crucified, but…you know…team.

      1. If he says anything (and he won’t unless his own ass comes under fire), it will be to the effect of, “The policies related to classification and records in the State Department are within the responsibility and discretion of the Secretary of State.” Followed by one of his usual, “There are some who would say…” and, “All too often…” strawmen.

        1. “Look, now this may be a priority for partisan Fox News Republicans , but I can tell you, that, uh, I talk to the folks everyday, and, make no mistake, the folks are more concerned with trying to earn a living wage and, uh, preserving the environment, for their children, than they are with distractions about e-mails and servers.”

        2. Don’t forget the part where he mentions learning of all this on CNN over breakfast that morning.

          1. Once Michelle saw the “breakfast doesn’t make you lose weight” news, do you honest think that Barack is allowed to eat breakfast any longer? That’s FOOD…

        3. “If he says anything”

          A strong 2nd option will be to claim he didn’t know anything about it until he read it in the paper this morning.

    2. “and her handling of classified information were all authorized by the Secretary of State.”

      No, I’ll think they’ll go with the old standby from the Clinton years.

      “There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.”
      — Al Gore, seven times (in one form or another), White House news conference, March 3

      1. That brings back warm memories. Perhaps Bill’s greatest accomplishment was staining Gore badly enough.

  7. So, Hillary ascidentally leaks some classerfied info and gets crucafied, while Snowdon, whom does it on porpoise, gets the Noble Prize. Hipocrytes.

    1. Cool story bro. Tell us more about what you think.

    2. Did you get into a fight with a poster who has OCD, and are now on a subtle campaign to drive them absolutely insane?

    3. Yer spillchek haz gawn kablooie.

    4. If Snowden were in the US he would be in jail or worse. So under your logic it is OK for Hillary to be a liar, possible traitor and crook because Snowden fled to Russia. Please someone require an IQ test to be able to vote

      1. In the span of two minutes yesterday at my local bar, i heard two people discuss the awesome speech given by Bernie Sanders and how disgusting the mining company was for dumping all that toxic sludge into that river.

        They’re nice enough people, but yeah, IQ tests to vote.

        1. It would be a great idea….if you could trust the test. Since it would be administered by the government, you can’t.

    5. Snowden, if he hadn’t ran would be doing life. So, how about five years for Hillary?

      1. Not long enough; the voters have short memories.
        Long enough she can’t run for office after she gets out.

        1. Not long enough; the voters have short memories.
          Long enough she can’t run for office after she gets out.

          It will eventually devolve to the Weekend at Bernie’s Hillary’s option.

          Andrew McCarthy’s part will be played by Chelsea.

      2. So, how about five years for Hillary?

        Five, how about eight? That’s two terms!

      1. (Not saying those are necessarily incompatible views, but the typos are a little too deliberate.)

        1. And here, I thought I’d be derided for having been too obvious.

          1. It’s not called Poe’s Suggestion…

          2. *pulls hook out of mouth*

  8. She’s going to look so awesome in a pinstriped pantsuit.

    1. I would never have pegged you for an optimist.

    2. READY FOR HILLARY to go to jail.

      1. There’s a meme:

        A pic of a jail cell with the door open, and the caption READY FOR HILLARY.

        1. http://i57.tinypic.com/2m48t1c.jpg

          Best I could throw together in two minutes from Google Image Searches. Feel free to play with as you sit fit!

        2. Would give her a great chance to write a book. Titled “My Struggle” or something like that.

          1. You know who else wrote a book called “My Struggle” from a jai … oh, shit.

            1. Curse my slow refresh!
              Mine was going to be: You know who else wrote a book titled… Oh hell, what difference, at this point, does it make?

          2. Yeah, and the villains will be members of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’!
            Off to the ovens with ’em!

    3. Well, she loved wearing pants with disco stripes in the 70s, the pre-paintsuit days.

  9. It seems very strange to me that anyone including progressive Democrats would vote for Hillary. I suppose some people just don’t care about truth so long as their agenda marches on.

    1. I suppose some people just don’t care about truth so long as their agenda marches on.

      Exactly. Besides, who else are you going to vote for? A Republican?

      1. Integrity, character, morality, and ethics are such dead letters anymore.

    2. I actually talked about this with my Hillary-supporting fiance a few days ago.

      Her support for Hillary is, according to her, based on the following:
      1) She’s not a Republican like Jeb Bush.
      2) Bill Clinton was a good president (and charming!) and we need him back in the whitehouse
      3) If we discuss this any further the date is over! (the last was a joke)

      Most libertarians are interested in political philosophy to some degree, and if they only discuss politics with other similarly interested people, they may forget the gaping ignorance on the topic shown by people lacking an interest in it.

      My fiance has no interest in separation of powers or checks and balances. She doesn’t really care about the dangers of a lawless culture of politicians and civil servants to the society they parasitize. She hates high taxes, but imagines that it goes to good causes like helping poor women feed their babies. She thinks greenism is a good idea and has never heard anyone other than polluters speak against it. She has only encountered the phrase ‘regulatory capture’ in my rants.

      Her laser like focus on her profession has brought her great success and a comfortable income. She is a good woman who works hard, saves, and take care of her family & friends.

      All she knows is that Republicans are heartless bastards bent on imposing their twisted morality on others (and having grown up the child of a single mother in the bible belt she can prove it), and they must be kept out of office.

      1. You’re going to marry this? What the fuck are you THINKING?

        1. she must swallow it all every night

          1. With comments like the above, I just can’t understand why the meme that libertarians are virgins living in their parents’ basement has so much currency!

            1. When she marries you, Mom is gonna let you move out of the basement?

              Good for ya!

            2. There is nothing in your original comment that did not raise huge red flags in my head. For the record.

              1. Hamster, sometimes you frighten me. I mean that as a compliment.

          2. That will come to a screeching halt after the vows.

            1. ^^This

            2. +1 jar of beans

        2. You have to choose your fights if you want cooch. Most of us support being gay in theory, not in practice.

        3. There is far more to life than politics.

          If my fiance were president, Hillary would have been indicted already.

          1. Two lives, my friend. I agree. My wife is a hardcore buddhist as is her family. I find it nonsense, but you gotta live with people.

            1. “hardcore buddhist”

              Isn’t being a hardcore buddhist kind of antithetical to being a buddhist?

              1. Every morning, kneeling before the butsudan, chanting, going through ritualisitic motions. Maybe some buddhists will embrace the scientific method, I dunno. If it is a just a method to clear their mind,fine, knock yourself out. You think hardcore buddhists don’t exist, you need to visit Asia.

          2. You do mean fianc?e, right? Or is there something you want to tell us?

          3. I am the voice of experience here. My first wife was a foaming at the mouth lefty feminist. I thought it was charming and somewhat amusing. Three years of alimony payments later, the charm wore off.

            All normal HyR joking aside, this really does speak to core values. Yours and hers are fundamentally different. Give this some serious thought, especially if you’re in a community property state. I’m insanely happily married now, and I attribute this to absolutely congruent attitudes about individualism, responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

            1. My first wife was a foaming at the mouth lefty feminist. I thought it was charming and somewhat amusing.

              My fiance isn’t. She was repelled into the arms of the Democrats by foaming at the mouth socons from the bible belt.

              All normal HyR joking aside, this really does speak to core values. Yours and hers are fundamentally different.

              Except they are not. Our core values are actually pretty much identical. Her attitude toward politics is based on a thought process little different than the one I apply to chose fast food places. Does a preference for Wendy’s over Burger King herald a difference in core values?

              I attribute this to absolutely congruent attitudes about individualism, responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

              And, shockingly, that’s true of our relationship as well! 😉

              1. I’ll take the under on two years. Anyone else want to get into the pool?

                1. Two years is too short. I’d say six years if they don’t have kids. Could be forever if the do have kids. People will put up with a lot for the good of the children.

                  That being said, young people often minimize political and ideological differences when they are young, but those differences will magnify as time passes and ardor fades.

                2. I’ll take the under on two years. Anyone else want to get into the pool?

                  I’ll take that bet! So, come September 2018, what exactly what forfeit are you going to send my way? 😉

              2. Does a preference for Wendy’s over Burger King herald a difference in core values?

                It can, or it can be merely preference. If I choose Wendy’s because Burger King are “evil filthy traitors who moved to Canada rather than pay their fair share” and you pick Burger King because “Wendy’s fries were never quite as good”, there’s a potential for a core value difference.

              3. Yeah, don’t listen to them. I married someone who is, politically, a generic pubsec Democrat. Terrible, terrible voter. Fine as a wife, though. We don’t talk about politics unless R’s are being socontarded in the news.

              4. My fiance isn’t. She was repelled into the arms of the Democrats by foaming at the mouth socons from the bible belt.

                You’re marrying shreek?

            2. I tend to agree with OMWC. Sure politics isn’t everything, but it does speak about the person. For example my wife is a Republican, mainly because she prides herself as being a moral person. She considers Democrats to be an offense to her moral sensibilities. My ex-girlfriend before her was a total liberal Democrat. Turns out she wasn’t a very moral person, which I had to find out the hard way.

              Not accusing your lady of anything here, just pointing out that from what I’ve seen. I mean, if someone will support a politician who is an obvious liar, and praises her cheating husband, perhaps they don’t put a high value on things like honesty and faithfulness.

              1. I tend to agree with OMWC. Sure politics isn’t everything, but it does speak about the person. For example my wife is a Republican, mainly because she prides herself as being a moral person. She considers Democrats to be an offense to her moral sensibilities. My ex-girlfriend before her was a total liberal Democrat. Turns out she wasn’t a very moral person, which I had to find out the hard way.

                This is, nearly word-for-word, my exact same experience. My wife isn’t politically cognizant enough to let Democrats offend her moral sensibilities, but other than that, my experience is a carbon copy.

                At the very least, I would spend significant time and effort making sure that my hypothetical Progressive sympathizing fiancee was exactly on the same page as me regarding the major ground rules and life choices coming up in the next 20 years.

                1. “me regarding the major ground rules and life choices coming up in the next 20 years.”

                  Particularly with regards to child rearing. If you aren’t on the same page, it’s going to be a long, rough patch. (18+ years).

              2. I mean, if someone will support a politician who is an obvious liar, and praises her cheating husband, perhaps they don’t put a high value on things like honesty and faithfulness.

                This, or they’re an atrocious judge of character. Which can be almost as bad.

              3. if someone will support a politician who is an obvious liar, and praises her cheating husband, perhaps they don’t put a high value on things like honesty and faithfulness.

                She doesn’t know Hillary is a liar, because the only person who tells her that Hillary is, is me at one dinner! The only news she consumes are industry news for her work. While I am reading Rothbard or Bastiat, she’s knitting and listening to chamber music with a dreamy smile. She might catch snatches of NPR or PBS while commuting, but that’s it!

                I’ve witnessed her firing customers who lied to her. I’ve heard tales of her firing employees who behaved unethically.

                Her political views were literally formed by her impressions as a young woman who came from a very poor family as she come of age in the south during the Clinton era. The socons repelled her, and the Democrats seemed sane by comparison. Then there was an impeachment thing that came to nothing. In the meantime she was busting her ass to get ahead in a male dominated industry. She ended up in MA, which, you guys might have noticed, is a sea of progressive derp.

                If she is a bad person, so are half the people living in this damn state!

                1. *If she is a bad person, so are half the people living in this damn state!*

                  I’d say 99% of the people living in Taxachusettes are bad people. What a hell hole.

                2. OMG! He’s marrying Chelsea!

        4. He’s probably thinking that a relationship isn’t entirely based on politics and that he likes her despite their political differences.

          1. I went along to get some along in my last relationship, right up until she got drunk one night and told me not to disagree with her views on race or gender anymore. Things went downhill pretty rapidly after that.

            1. Yeah, I had a relationship like that. It ends in physical abuse. I saw the business end of her keys a couple times before I decided that I shouldn’t stick it in crazy.

              1. She was a very sweet person, but she was also a transplant from inner-city Detroit to the middle of Texas. Being black in Detroit is rough, and being a black kid in a predominantly cracker neighborhood is rough, too. So I didn’t hold it against her if she got a little miffed when I tried to explain why racialism only hurts her cause. But explicitly asking me not to have an opinion around her stung.

                1. Mine was a girl who had been abused by mommy and daddy, so she was all sorts of broken. She inherited her “violent when drunk” streak from daddy, who I almost had to lay out a couple times. She was also a know-it-all who had to feel like the smartest person in the room even though I had 30 IQ points on her, so political dissent just fired her up to get violent when she started drinking.

                  I learned quite a few lessons from that one, like don’t stick it in crazy and don’t try to fix broken people.

          2. Like her?!? I love her! She’s an amazing cook. She kicks my ass in scrabble 75% of the time. She has adopted my kids as her own. She has an incredible integrity. And, last but very much not least she says I’m as handsome as 1985 Tom Selleck.

            She can vote for Bernie Sanders for all I care.

            1. Ok, you lost me, sellout. 😉

            2. she says I’m as handsome as 1985 Tom Selleck

              When you guys are doing it, where does she put the white cane and the dog?

            3. If it ever does come to an end, I hope you’ll cap it by asking her, “Did you see the sunrise this morning?”

            4. Scrabble skills. Yup, there’s a superb reason for choosing a life mate.

              1. Wait, did I miss the part about her being a nymphomaniac and 12 on the zero-to-ten Scale and she or her dad owns a bar and a Ferrari dealership?

            5. Don’t listen to them. If you have found love, then good for you! My wife and I agreed in principle about politics, but not specifically. We disagreed about religion, me being agnostic, and religion is much more important than politics, at least for the religious.
              We didn’t fight over it. We loved each other enough to agree to disagree.
              Again, if you love her, marry her.
              Politics is not the most important thing in life, love is.

          3. Not only that, but people who don’t think very much about politics tend to be influenced by a stalwart. My wife was best described as a Texan lukewarm Republican when I met her. I’ve changed her from pro-cop to quite cynical about police. I’ve changed her from being a mindless Murica supporter to a person skeptical about concentrated power. She’s certainly not going to become a political philosopher, but sometimes she gets some one-liners in that make me proud.

            1. My wife was best described as a Texan lukewarm Republican when I met her. I’ve changed her from pro-cop to quite cynical about police. I’ve changed her from being a mindless Murica supporter to a person skeptical about concentrated power. She’s certainly not going to become a political philosopher, but sometimes she gets some one-liners in that make me proud.

              Speaking of carbon-copy experiences… I could say pretty much the same thing about my wife. There’s no way I will ever convince her that drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves, but other than that I’m getting her more on board with libertarian principles.

              1. “There’s no way I will ever convince her that drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves-”

                Get her stoned before you have that conversation.

          4. He’s probably thinking that a relationship isn’t entirely based on politics and that he likes her despite their political differences.

            The way he describes it, the differences are core values. This isn’t a Matalin/Carville thing where they work for different teams, but they both deeply believe in the necessity for authoritarian control.

          5. I agree with Old Man that values are key. Sometimes political differences come down to values, sometimes they don’t. But since they can be an indicator they shouldn’t be automatically ruled out as unimportant.

            1. Bunch of fuckin Dr Phils here. Top Men all.

      2. I think you make an excellent point. The only thing I’d add is that there’s also a decently sized population that only knows Republicans from the generally negative portrayal of them in the popular culture. There’s a lot of places where there are very few Republicans, and those that are there generally keep quiet about it.

        That would best describe my late wife. Pretty much until the day she died, she insisted that, while I was a Republican, I wasn’t like those other Republicans. I’d ask her what other Republicans, and she never really had much of an answer.

      3. ” (and having grown up the child of a single mother in the bible belt she can prove it)”

        That horrible dear, just think how far she might have gone in life not having to endure such hardships.

        And, given the heartless nature of her inculcators, just how did she come to posses all that compassion for the less fortunate???

        1. I know you won’t listen but,

          Run.

          Run now, while you still can.

          Otherwise plan on spending two lifetimes trying to deprogram all the contradictions within her, starting with the belief that she really can have it all.

          1. Its taken me 6 years to make significant headway in reprogramming my wife’s political inclinations. She went from the stance of “We will never own a gun” to “What kind of gun should we buy.” From an ardent Hillary supporter to a vehement detractor, she also concedes to the superiority of market driven economics.
            It has been a pain in the ass, but well worth it.

      4. Obviously the sex must be good because there apparently isn’t much reason to marry a mindless semi socialist useful idiot. Then again maybe she will grow up and open her eyes – wouldn’t count on it though

    3. some people just don’t care about truth so long as their agenda marches on.

      You misspelled “progtard”.

    4. Her boots are made for walking… all over you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

      Although the comparison is unfair to Nancy Sinatra. Unlike Hillary, she had style.

  10. Lying lair lies.

    Is there anyone in the country less qualified to be president?

    1. I dunno, maybe a community organizer?

      1. Damn. You got me there.

        1. no shit. Even after 7 years on the job training, the dumb bastard is just as unqualified today as he was when he first got the job. Some people are truly untrainable.

          1. Just because his parents marriage was bigamous, there’s still no good reason to call the guy a bastard. It’s not kids’ fault whether or not their parents were married.

            1. No, but Obozo is pretty much a self-made man.

              1. …. trying to come up with a reply that does not contain words like ‘incompetent, handicapped, ….’

    2. Your first sentence doesn’t support your second sentence.

    3. Oh, Christ, don’t get me started. Aside from the present disgrace, how about her husband, Bubba? Or John “Lurch” Kerry? Or John “I love my reputation as a maverick soo much I don’t think before I make major decisions” McCain? Or anyone who has ever worked for MSNBC in any capacity?

  11. The important takeaway from this story so far, however, comes not from any particular findings or conclusions of the investigations, but from Clinton’s pattern of dissembling, untruthful responses.

    So she is either a pathological liar who lies for no benefit or she is hiding something much more damaging than what we know about or both.

    1. Why not both? We already know she lies about things like getting shot at by sniper fire and running for cover – clearly she is a pathological liar, and what we do know about her doesn’t pass the smell test.

      If a diaper smells like shit – you know it is full of shit.

      1. Based upon my experience watching a toddler yesterday, sometimes it’s a fart….but the shit’s not far behind…..

    2. There is no doubt whatsoever that she’s engaged in hiding something. We just don’t know what. While I think she and her husband are insanely corrupt and suspect it’s something of that nature, it’s not uncommon for the cover up to be worse than the underlying matter. Who knows with these people?

      1. I think what she’s hiding is explicit quid pro quos for Clinton Foundation donations.

        1. Yeah, that’s likely part of it.

      2. Here’s my conspiracy theory: there are (or WERE) emails on that server between Hillary and Obama that make Obama look really, really bad. So, his administration is giving her the kid gloves treatment: they’ll ask ‘pretty-please’ for her to turn over the emails of her own accord, giving her time to delete them, all the while making it look like they “did something” about it.

        Yes, it’s just a conspiracy theory. But considering the horrible stuff we find whenever this veil of government secrecy is temporarily lifted, the only reasonable conclusion is that the emails on that server are evidence of some terrible government wrongdoing, worse than any of us can imagine.

        1. Mmmmaybe.

          Two things:

          1 – No matter what Obama does, it doesn’t hurt him. He can explain away anything that makes him look really, really bad to the satisfaction of 51% of the U.S. population.

          2 – I don’t think they emailed each other, they hate each other so much.

          Off the top of my head, I imagine she said a few things that would make Obama blow his top if he saw them, and she needs his backing for 2016.

    3. …but is she a believer?

    4. There’s another, simpler, answer. All her life, she has been able to lie with near impunity. The Liberal Intellectual Radican Progressive establishment has always covered for her. She’s all kinds of good by their standards, and so they never called her on her obvious faults.

      What distinguishes her from a pathological liar is that a pathological liar is good at it. His lies are plausable. Hillary lies flat footed, because she has so seldom been challenged; she doesn’t know how to lie well. She keeps telling loes that are going to be exposed by any five year old who bothers to look.

  12. Heard about this on NPR this morning. It’s like old news and stuff so it like doesn’t matter and stuff because it’s like old and stuff. You know?

    1. My favorite bit on NPR this morning was a story about how the EPA was trying to clean up those millions of gallons of toxic waste that ‘were released’ in Colorado. My wife hadn’t heard about it before. I asked her if she could tell from the report that it was actually the EPA itself that had done the dumping. She said, “No”. Pathetic.

    2. I know, right? And besides, I heard that Donald Trump said something inflammatory! Now THAT’S a story!

  13. Mr. Sudeman:

    This is Reason’s Hit and Run. If Gillespie can say “fuck” then you can say “lying” instead of “untrue.”

    1. Yeah. They are her emails. She knows the truth about them. “Making untrue claims” makes it sound like she is misinformed. No, she is the only person on earth fully informed about those emails. If anything she says is untrue, it is untrue because she is lying.

      Never forget, Republicans lie. Democrats just make the occasional untrue statement in Reasonland.

      1. John, I literally googled ‘Reason.com Obamacare Lies’ and found that this claim isn’t exactly true.

        Suderman literally had an article called They Lied. You know – Peter Suderman, the guy who wrote the article you’re currently complaining about and of whom you say he would never call Democrats liars.

        1. That was damn white of him to admit they were lying four years after they lied and after the bill was already past and Obama could never run for election again. I guess I am a bit of a hard ass and wished he had written that article in 2010, when it mattered and when everyone was saying these people were lying. What was Suderman writing then?

          Of course Hillary unlike Obama is running for office and obviously lying. She of course is just making untrue statements. I guess we will have to wait until she is re-elected in 2020 for Suderman to admit she is lying.

          1. Also from Reason: Jonathan Gruber is a liar.

            Obama is a good BSer but he’s a terrible liar.

            Don’t try to move the goalposts. You explicitly claimed that Reason calls Republicans liars but doesn’t call Democrats liars. That’s clearly, wait for it!, untrue.

            1. Again, all of that was known years before. it is damn white of them to admit that Obama guy just isn’t very honest after he no longer is running for office and it is going to be very difficult to undo the damage he did.

              I am not moving the goal posts at all. I am just conceding your point. If a Democrat is no longer in office or no longer going to run for office, Reason will admit they lied. Otherwise, they make untrue statements.

              You have me. After it no longer matters, Reason doesn’t pull any punches and treats Democrats almost as harshly as the treat Republicans.

            2. Did Reason ever call Obama a liar before he was re-elected?

            3. Count on Reason to warn you that the Democrat Horse is well and truly out of the Honesty Barn.

          2. They aren’t untrue statements, they are just statements of questionable facticity.

      2. “Untrue claims were made,” if she used cop-speak.

        1. “Consulate personnel were no longer mission effective?”

  14. Just an heads up, Shrike is gonna be cranky this afternoon.

    His beloved S&P is sliding (along with the rest of the markets) faster than… something that slides very fast.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12…..slide.html

    S&P 500 negative for year; stocks plunge as yuan extends slide

    1. something that slides very fast.

      A porn star’s penis?

    2. And his much-hated gold is up.

    3. Off the lows!

    4. Yeah like he believes anything you teafucking ratbagging goldbug peanuts say. After a couple of hours he’ll show up with some irrelevant link to prove how great things are.

  15. OT: Professor claims drawing pictures of Mohammad is ‘cultural genocide,’ refers to anti-Islamic commentators as ‘dirty Jewish Zionist thugs.’

    Furthermore:

    Most recently, Siddique drew ire for Facebook posts that included the remark about Geller, suggested that one reason Bill Cosby’s accusers did not come forward sooner could be that “many women are sluts” and opposed a “homo uprising.”

    A charming man for sure.

    1. Siddique, a Muslim who is a native of Pakistan, defended his right to speak his mind on his own time.

      “If you can’t talk and you can’t express yourself at a university,” he said, “then you can’t express yourself anywhere.”

      He’s 100% correct here.

      1. Sure he is. I just don’t think that sentence means quite what he thinks it does.

      2. He’s right, but it comes off a bit hilarious that he’s defending his own free speech rights while declaring Pamela Geller’s free speech rights to be cultural genocide.

        Read the facebook post over here where he applauds the idea of Muslim families taking extra-judicial vengeance for rape, calls American women ‘slaves to rich men,’ and says most non-Muslims are rapists.

        Saying non-Muslims are rapists = A-okay. Drawing picture of Mohammad = cultural genocide.

        1. “If you can’t talk and you can’t express yourself at a university,” he said, “then you can’t express yourself anywhere.”

          Brave stance to take on a campus that likely supports your point of view.

      3. Holy shit, this guy’s even crazier than I thought!

        One newsletter from this month includes an article by Boston-based activist Karin Friedemann which states that “sodomy is very bad because mixing poopoo germs into the mouth or the vagina is very disgusting and leads to diseases, which could even involve death of a fetus.”

        Another issue of New Trend, released after a day of triple terror attacks in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, called the European attack “bizarre” and decries the terror in Kuwait as “unforgivable.” An unbylined article explains the reasoning:

        “No one has asked the Tunisian people if the half naked tourists should be cavorting on the beaches of a Muslim country. Such behavior in [sic] forbidden in Islam. Looks like the assailant was following Osama bin Laden’s teaching that economic basis of regimes hostile to Islam should be attacked.

        “To avoid violence, the government, if it is a legitimate regime, should ask the people if they want western tourists and if so how should their behavior be regulated.”

        Siddique, himself, believes that terror groups like ISIS did not commit many of the acts it readily admits to: slavery, keeping hundreds of girls and women as concubines, and the mass murder of innocents.

        He’s an ISIS terrorism denier!

        1. Look, Irish, even I won’t do ass to mouth.

          1. no fiona apples or anallingus? you really are the worst.

            1. That’s…not ass to mouth.

              1. yep I’m an idiot.

          2. There’s certain holes you just don’t switch between without a shower first or antibiotics after.

        2. “sodomy is very bad because mixing poopoo germs into the mouth or the vagina is very disgusting”

          -Alright I’m with him so far. I’ll keep an open mind.

          “and leads to diseases, which could even involve death of a fetus.”

          -Not sure what your bitch is. This is just sound science.

        3. He’s an ISIS terrorism denier!

          “Poopoo germs”? Sounds more like he is 11 years old.

      4. I’m not even at a University, and I can say that Siddique is a stone-age Wahabbi cunt.

        -jcr

    2. I’m not prejudiced but I think African Americans are more open minded,” he said. “They are willing to listen to many things which other people would not be willing listen.

      Not prejudiced, but an imbecile.

    3. A culture that suffers “genocide” from drawing a picture of its founder is a pretty darn weak one.

    4. Professor claims drawing pictures of Mohammad is ‘cultural genocide,’

      True, in the sense that it is disparaging and trying to “kill off” a culture. Too bad it isn’t succeeding. Islam belongs in the dustbin of history, along with communism and Christianity.

      refers to anti-Islamic commentators as ‘dirty Jewish Zionist thugs.’

      There are also those of us who are faggot thugs, and libertarian thugs! Don’t forget us!

      many women are sluts

      I suspect not enough according to the average red-blooded American male.

  16. wow….look at this conspiracy theory. The EPA poisons rivers intentionally to try and get more funding.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..fund-money

    1. Nothing succeeds like the EPA dumping a million gallons of toxic sludge with heavy metals into a river.

    2. My guess is that it’s less about getting more funding, and just part of the War on the West that has been going on for a long time now.

      The rural mountain west is the most independent and libertarian-ish region of the country, which is why the lefty elite scum hates it so much. They’re actively trying to depopulate these areas a little bit at a time.

      1. Or it could just be that, you know, the EPA is horribly incompetent and lacks any incentive to be anything else. But vast, wide-ranging conspiracy theories are fun too, if your paranoid little mind works like that.

        1. Yeah, never assume malice when sheer incompetence and stupidity would account for all the known facts.

          1. Simon’s Law:
            It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

  17. If the law thought any prole had transmitted Top Secret material over an unsecured e-mail system, said prole would be in jail awaiting trial. The gubmint doesn’t give much of a shit about securing our data (hello VA!), but it sure as fuck will freak if its own data is compromised.

    On the other hand, it could really be an entertaining four years of Hillary following the Clinton Scandal Playbook of deny, obfuscate, and dissemble, followed by a highly qualified admission of wrongdoing and a pathetic mea culpa- all while making the accusing parties look like jagoffs.

    1. Here is what happens when people not in the inner party are thought to have leaked classified material.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

    2. yet steal a pack of gum at a local convenience store and you will be arrested and prosecuted within six weeks.
      Makes one have a lot of confidence in the criminal justice system

      1. Let’s just call it the Punishment System. You empower these people when you embrace their Orwellian terms.

  18. Clinton initially refused to let an independent examiner have access to her email server, saying it contained personal communications between Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Yet Bill Clinton has, by his own account, sent just two emails in his life.

    Um, Hillary? Once you’ve lost Bill, …………..

  19. Hillary Clinton Keeps Making Untrue Claims About Her Use of a Private Email Server

    And how many Dems/Independants that were going to originally vote for HRC will this persuade to refrain from voting for this woman? Zero? One?

    1. A good number of the Reason staff have always wanted to vote for a woman for President.

      1. So they are going to vote for Carly Fiorina if they get the chance?

        Rand + Carly and I might vote Repooblican

        1. Hell no. It would mine too.

  20. Is the Shit-Storm starting now? So many exciting things going on!

  21. Telling the truth is…uh…MISOGYNISTIC!!… and…um…possibly RACIST!

  22. “Making Untrue Claims”

    Why are people so terrified to say “lying”? This is not “alleged”; it’s not “under investigation”. These are pure flat out lies, several of which are actually documented in the piece!

    Call it what it is people.

    1. I don’t think Reason.com is pulling punches with Democrats. I think that “making untrue claims” is just one of those phrases that occasionally creeps into the lexicon of writers who are trying to sound fancy and professional.

      1. Just as an add on, I never went to journalism school but my understanding is that one of the principle rules in writing copy is to never use three words where one would suffice….

        1. That’s when they had to pay for ink and paper. I remember journalism classes in Jr high, there was a lot about fitting things onto a page.
          With the interwebs, it’s different, I think.

  23. Hil-LIAR-y.

  24. So, why is the Obama admin’s DOJ keeping this e-mail scandal alive? Among the possibilities are 1) Obama and Clinton hate each other’s guts but can’t come right out and say it or the Dem party/black vote gets split all over, 2) DOJ will eventually issue a white-wash “nothing to see here; Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong” just as the 2016 election ramps up. You could convince me that Bill and Hillary see Barack as a totally empty suited incompetent but obviously can’t say so until she is securely in the White House. Or maybe Obama will eventually release whatever hideous mistake Hillary is covering up and, to protect his legacy, will say he was totally unaware until his DOJ uncovered it. Legacies are in play, after all.

    1. Two hands gripping two throats.

      1. It is like one of those python dies while trying to swallow giant alligator pictures

    2. So, pardon my paranoia. There is NO WAY this will happen, but it is a funny thought.

      BO keeps his mouth shut.

      Shrill Hill wins the election.

      Sometime before the end of Nov 15 and the start of her term BO releases some pretty juicy information, getting Hill sent up down the river (Up the river? I forget which is which…). Now we have elected a Dem, the R has conceeded the elction, and the rightful president is under investigation for treason.

      State of Emergency, BO puts himself in for a third term, or perhaps longer if he can manage a war outbreak at the same time.

      Thoughts?

      1. Nah. If Hillary gets busted after getting elected, there’s a succession built into the Constitution. Her VP would step up on January 20.

        1. And that’s how we end up with President O’Malley.

      2. Cool but over compensates BO’s competency.

        1. estimates…. fuck i’m retarded.

      3. He convinces Hillary to put Michelle as her VP as the price of not prosecuting. Then, the rest like you say.

    3. So, why is the Obama admin’s DOJ keeping this e-mail scandal alive?

      Leverage. Obama will only control the DOJ and the vast leverage it can exert for another year and change. Right now, he’s got enormous leverage over Hillary (and Bill and their foundation). He probably hasn’t even decided what to do with this leverage.

      But, now that its an official investigation, note that all questions can be shrugged off with a “Can’t talk about that, investigation pending”. This is actually a big favor to Hillary, in its way.

      And, at the end of the road, Obama can either bury Hillary or, if she gives what he wants, whitewash her. This keeps him in the game, and sets him up for a big payoff at the end.

  25. Peter acts as though he is surprised that Hillary would lie. Seriously?

  26. The government spends millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs to protect classified information. Every normal user receives annual training on the subject and faces harsh penalties for failure.
    All of that time and money has been wasted because Hillary wanted to keep her secrets from *everyone*.

  27. I’ve been guilty before of wishful thinking and unreasoned optimism, but I do believe she’s finished.

    1. If she is, and you may be right that she is finished, the Democrats are likely finished for 2016. They have no one else.

      Let me give you a crackpot conspiracy theory. Obama knows his veto of the Iran deal is going to be overridden and plans to violate the law and implement the deal anyway. The Democrats will then impeach him allowing Obama to be the martyr he craves to be and Biden to run as an incumbent.

      1. The Dems would never do that to themselves. Nothing that ends with “Biden gets to run” will makes sense. See above for my theory.

      2. His veto isn’t going to be overridden.

        Short of video of Obama committing a violent felony, the Dems will never, ever, impeach him.

        And, sadly, neither will the Repubs.

        1. His veto very well may be overridden. Schummer coming out against the deal is a very big deal. Only 41% of Democrats support the deal. Every Democrat in Congress knows that this deal is going to give the Iranians the bomb and leave them to be blamed for it. I give it fifty fifty at this point. Understand that if they vote it down, he will just break the law and implement the deal anyway creating the biggest constitutional crisis since the civil war.

          I know you follow the reason party line that all politicians in Washington think and do the exact same thing and there is no difference between any of them, but amazingly enough, life doesn’t always work as simply as you think.

          1. His veto very well may be overridden. Schummer coming out against the deal is a very big deal.

            Nope. Not gonna happen. This is all political theater. Obama and the Ds know that he can spare 10 or so defectors before it starts getting tight. At this point, it’s all about giving the Ds who need to distance themselves from Obama by the ’16 election an opportunity to do so.

            1. No it is more complex than that. Allowing a few people to distance themselves won’t be good enough.

              1. A few? Congress needs a super majority.

                Corker cemented his membership in the Permanent Ruling Fusion Party by setting up this deal where so many can defect and still give Obama his Congressional non-nod of non-disapproval.

      3. If she is, and you may be right that she is finished, the Democrats are likely finished for 2016. They have no one else.

        Yep, Bernie Sanders is surging among the base, but he is absolutely not electable on a national level. He’s their Donald Trump (though I think he’s a more principled man than Trump could ever hope to be). If I were a leading Republican candidate right now, I’d ignore Clinton altogether and work instead on separating myself from the other Republicans. No need to waste time, energy, and money attacking a candidate who’s collapsing all on her own.

        I don’t know about your conspiracy theory, but I do imagine they’re priming Biden for a run at the presidency, as they already know their frontrunner is finished.

        1. Why cant bern be elected? Bern actually gets me more queasy because of his love for the state. All his positions require more central planning and giving him more power.

          I think hilldog would just be a robber baron and do nothing as far as policy

          It nerves me that progressives fawn own over him. People like free chit provided by someone else but they never think past the narrow talking points on what these policies actually entail

          1. Why cant bern be elected?

            Because he’s an avowed, unabashed socialist. While America has elected socialists before, I don’t believe they’ll elect one that openly admits to it.

            1. It could be a first.

        2. Yep, I don’t get why a Rep would waste time campaigning against any Dem this soon. You need to get the Rep nomination first, so campaign against other Reps. If you get the nomination, you’ll have a long time to speak out against your opponent. Perhaps the theory is that Independents are listening now?

          1. Exactly right. Appeal to the base up to the last few weeks of primary season (its a foregone conclusion by then). Then speak in verbose nothingness from there onwards and even sell out the base if you want since they already committed anyway.

            It sort of makes the whole idea of primaries a rather stupid way of a party vetting an electable candidate. Before primaries, the horse-trading at conventions might have been detestable to those that detest government, but primaries haven’t improved a damn thing except make taxpayers pay for the party process. At a real convention, the best player of ball is chose, a primary only produces each party’s biggest sellout.

        3. I’ve thought all along that Biden wasn’t going to run, but a federal indictment of Hillary would change the entire game. It would completely open the door for him.

        4. I disagree, you do not achieve what Trump has achieved without having serious principles. It’s just that all of those principles are self-serving.

          Not to say that Sanders doesn’t have principles, just that his are a muddled mess of high, if misguided, aspirations, and low achievement.

      4. The Democrats will not impeach Obama. It will not happen. Not even over the Iran deal.

    2. I concur, this is too big for it to go away. When the hat drops, Obumbles will throw her under the bus.

      1. Obumbles will throw her under the bus.

        Yep. And I believe it’s as simple as he still hates Clinton and has great affection for Biden.

      2. This is the most interesting riddle of all to me. What’s Obama going to do with his power to pardon?

        The other most interesting riddle of all is how is Hillary gonna get herself out smoothly so that she doesn’t taint Chelsea’s political future?

  28. Her explanation that she didn’t want to use two phones is silly. She literally had a dozen people following her around at all times.

    Also, come on: she was the second most powerful person in the US Government (at least in foreign affairs), it’s a negligible sacrifice for all that power to have to carry around two phones.

  29. Why or do you think bern is unelectable? 28k at rallies…dang. 40 pct will go blue no matter what.

    Berns philosophy that prosperity comes via the state concerns me

    1. Like Trump he is batshit crazy. Probably not electable.

    2. I don’t think he’s unelectable, personally. I think that’s a delusion perpetrated by people who would never imagine voting for him because they believe a majority of the country think exactly like they do.

      Bernie’s message has populist appeal (populism has been on the upswing for years in the Western World) and he’s tapping into anger from progressive/leftist forces that was only papered over during the Obama administration. Is his message strong enough to to the White House, assuming he beats Hillary? I honestly don’t know. It depends on whom the Republicans nominate. I can see him, however, giving any establishment nominee enormous headaches in this current political environment.

      1. Yea. If you read his twitter everything is some attack on something. He is a demagogue. Populists wouldnt give themselves more power. I dont understand why progs are so angry to begin with. They dont realize how good they have it

    3. He can’t be electable because he generates no enthusiasm in the black and hispanic communities. And without a big turnout in those communities, the Democrats can’t win. Bernie is strictly a stuff white people like.

      1. Bernie is strictly a stuff white people like.

        Have you talked with any actual black or hispanic Democrats about this? My black GF loves her some Bernie.

  30. She handed over the 30,000 emails printed out on paper yet her attorney had them on a thumb drive. Why would she deliver them paper, at least 60 reams of it, when it all fit on a thumb drive? To make it has hard as possible to work with, obviously. Above and beyond indeed…

    1. Not to mention that when the government wants some kind of information from one of us “little people”, they kick down the doors and handcuff everybody at gunpoint. Then they confiscate every electronic device and trash the place in search of any more. None of this “pretty-please, will you turn over those emails” BS.

      1. They would do that with Hillary too, except for the fact that she gets all hot and bothered when men in uniform threaten to handcuff her, and police find that too creepy.

  31. In other news, looks like more than China’s currency is burning today. Big booms in Tianjin:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..-port-city

  32. Laws don’t apply to Clintons, you fucking peasants! Now shut up and vote for her, because it’s her TURN, god damn it!

    -jcr

  33. “Untrue claims”? No, it’s called LYING. Blatant lies, NOT “untrue claims”. Just like obozo, everydamnthing is a lie, they’re both pathological, compulsive, consistent LIARS, GEESE.

  34. Add to these untruths that (as reported by FOX) she actually turned the server over to Justice last week, along with 3 thumb drives containing some/all the disputed emails.
    Hillary is like a caricature of a real person, although she is just more obvious in her lying than the rest of the political crowd and most of the media. It seems she believes she is beyond questioning and is highly offended when, if ever, confronted. When will the lame-stream hold her to the same level of questioning as they do the Repubs?
    Joe, Algore, and Kerry better start warming up in the bull pen.
    It is great entertainment however. ROFLMAO

  35. It’s called simply LYING. She and Bill are two peas in a pod when it comes to truth-telling.

  36. Won’t it be interesting when we find out that a hack of her server is what tipped off ISIS that our ambassador was going to be in Benghazi negotiating the return of some missiles she had misplaced. Obviously, they knew something was up. Why else would they pick that particular night to attack?

    We know now it wasn’t some lame video and I’ll bet there’s plenty of evidence to prove she lied about that too.

  37. She may not have lied. She says that she didn’t “send” any classified material. Did she say that the didn’t receive any? I would be shocked if she didn’t know what was eventually going to happen and deliberately gave a nuanced answer. The story suggests that emails were sent to her, i.e., they were on the server. But that doesn’t mean that she sent them, only that they were there. It would be an epic Clintonian straddle.

    1. No, the Inspector’s General said she sent classified information. Nor does it matter. Receiving/storing classified information on a non-secure server is exactly the same as sending said info from said server.

  38. Don’t worry, Bernie the commie is in the game with promises of free Ben & Jerry’s for life

  39. Why do we say “untrue”? She is a liar and tells lies. Why sugar coat it?

  40. Why cant we just call a liar a liar?

    That is what she and Bill are PATHOLOGICAL LIARS!

  41. “The Democratic frontrunner’s untruthful responses to the private email scandal prove she can’t be trusted.”

    Shocked! This is the first time I realized she can’t be trusted. *eyes roll*

  42. Sigh…

    Stop listening to the MSM deflection narrative.

    The main story here is not about classified emails.

    The story is about why anyone, let alone someone in a high level government position who should require the very highest level of security would need to set up a private server at home for work emails.

    This is absolutely unheard of and there is NO good reason why anyone would do this. Does anyone personally know of anyone who does this? NO. And there’s a good reason why. There are laws that require businesses to secure and backup their emails offsite for a specific period of time. Believe it or not, government agencies are not immune to these laws.

    If there are ANY emails that are found to be unrecoverable from this server, I mean we’re talking about fucking State Department work emails here, for the lub of bejeebus, people, then someone has committed federal crimes.

    Someone, anyone, please give me a justifiable reason why anyone would set up a private server for work emails and then try to hide what is on that server?

    1. there is NO good reason why anyone would do this.

      There are plenty of good reasons: corruption, illegal dealings, circumvention of FOIA, etc.

  43. No no, you idiots, they were classified “RETROACTIVELY”, meaning sometime after the Emails took place.

    Reason.com is full of fucking retards. EX POST FACTO you FOOLS.

    1. “No no, you idiots, they were classified “RETROACTIVELY”, meaning sometime after the Emails took place.”

      OK, so this *is* a lie.
      The question is whether the post is sarc or stupidity…

    2. No no, you idiots, they were classified “RETROACTIVELY”, meaning sometime after the Emails took place.

      Oh, that poor little helpless housewife had E-mails show up on her home E-mail server that was then retroactively classified, and now the big, mean government is out to get her!

      That’s a lame excuse. It was part of Clinton’s job to protect any kind of sensitive information. If she received information that had the potential to be classified retroactively, she should have taken better care of it.

      The issue here is not whether Clinton formally violated a rule, the issue is whether she is a prudent, honest, and competent government official, and obviously she isn’t.

  44. Peter, I think everyone in America, excluding the low-info folks, and beyond know that the Hildabeast and trust are worlds apart. The words genuine, trustworthy, sincere, and honest are foreign for this individual.
    Let’s have a great article about the differences between progressives and socialists. Ooops, that may end up being a one sentence statement….

  45. Hillary Clinton Keeps Making Untrue Claims About Her Use of a Private Email Server

    Why the circumlocutions? Hillary Clinton keeps lying.

  46. She is a cunning runt.

  47. Pretty sad when they run a hero like Snowden out of the country, and yet a cold-hearted lying bitch like Hillary is above the law

  48. For a multitude of reasons, the requirement to use government servers by government employees is independent of your classification or the classification of the material of which you are sending/receiving. From the lowest level employee to the president, all government employees must use a government servers for the country’s protection and yours. Security is the chief reason, but accountability is a close second. And there lies the rub with Clinton. It appears there is more than a passing suspicion Clinton’s motivation was obfuscation. From Sid’s involvement in affairs of State (against the direct orders of the president), questions about Foundation donations creating an image of influence peddling, aids doing non-government work while on the government payroll, to the failure to act in the face of repeated aggressions in Benghazi… the suspicions are manifold. Taken together with the facts there are glaring gaps in email traffic at the times when there should have been the highest amount of correspondence to Clinton’s sniping, uncooperative attitude, blaming everyone but herself, she is only casts further doubt on her story line.

  49. Hillary and Lois Lerner in the same cell in prison.
    Who would be on top first?
    The video of this action could replace the need for chemical emetics!

  50. Can’t stand how the left crucifies people on the right for tiny things like a simple word usage thirty years ago but totally ignore or makes excuses for people on the left who are guilty of major crimes.

    They’re totally hypocritical and don’t even understand they’re that way. Talk about clueless! Or are they just totally dishonest?

  51. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  52. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  53. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  54. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  55. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  56. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  57. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  58. If ever there was a question of how partisan politics will be the end of this country…may I present exhibit A. There is absolutely no way she should still be in this race. Yet, she’s going to be the presumptive nominee. How sad is that? She could murder a new puppy on live tv. In prime time. And the bootlickers on the left will look the other way and make every excuse in the book. The right does the exact same thing. Smh

  59. People are jumping to conclusions when they say Hillary lied! I am sure when the truth comes out we’ll find out that she um simply misspoke. Just like she always does. (She’s a habitual misspeaker.)

  60. Hillary didn’t get the question when she said she wasn’t involved with “classified” material; she thought it was about Bill’s Craigslist ads

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.