Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Wanted to Keep Up Appearances Regarding Private Email Server as Early as 2009

Newly revealed emails indicate the former secretary of state was concerned about more than just "convenience."

|

What, me fundamentally honest?
Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely "for convenience." 

Among the 165 pages of emails released Monday, the Associated Press notes one particularly telling exchange from March 2009 between Clinton (who had been in office barely two months) and aide Huma Abedin: 

"I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State," Clinton wrote to Abedin and a second aide. "Who manages both my personal and official files? … I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."

You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules. 

The AP adds, "In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal records-keeping standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers." Reason's Peter Suderman wrote after the report's release, "It makes clear that [Clinton] refused to play by the rules while acting as Secretary of State—ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process."

Yesterday the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted (but not by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, who inexplicably declared Clinton "fundamentally honest" in a recent Guardian column). 

Vanquished Democratic presidential also-ran Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) famously said at an early debate that he would not make an issue out of Clinton's "damn emails," which many Democratic loyalists appreciated as a civil gesture from the insurgent candidate. Sanders later reiterated that he wouldn't make Clinton's character an issue, but would not shy away from critiquing her judgment. Yet, with each new batch of emails released — thanks to over 30 lawsuits filed by news organizations and legal activists, not through any willingness to be transparent on Clinton's part — Sanders' decision to lay off the emails seems like a missed opportunity.

As the FBI investigation into Clinton continues with no clear end in sight, emails like the one noted here further erode Clinton's claim to superior judgment and her willful doublespeak reinforces the impression held by many (not all of whom are fire-breathing conservatives) that she is far from "fundamentally honest." 

Advertisement

NEXT: Violence Over Food in Venezuela Continues As Maduro Looks to Dissolve Legislature in Response to Recall Referendum Attempt

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. You can’t have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn’t know the rules or you thought you were above the rules.

    Not necessarily. You can just assume you’re above the rules, whatever they happen to be.

    1. And this, I suspect captures the combination of arrogance and ignorance that is Hillary Clinton.

      1. It’s funny. I think she’d be a helluvan interesting neighbor in the small town where I live. I think if she was away from any authority or power, she’d both tell and be the butt of endless jokes, but generally tolerated as that crazy lady down the street. She’d tell kids to get off her lawn, she’d try to take over the local do-gooder societies, she whine about the local free library box being too close to the roadway, but in general, people would just roll their eyes and smile when thinking of her.

        She’s a shining example of how power corrupts.

        1. No, I think she’d actively pursue whatever power was available. If you could contain her on a local level, she’d end up some petty planning and zoning tyrant that would fine you for not cutting your grass, or putting your trash-cans away.

          1. So you’re saying she’d become the HOA president walking around measuring lawns with a ruler to see how high the grass was?

            1. The number of suicides via gunshot to the back of head in the HOA would go thru the roof.

          2. Yep, and she would be the reason that no one goes to PTA meetings.

          3. You’re right about all that. But my small town is unincorporated and all local associations are entirely voluntary. Part of my fiction is that she wouldn’t have any legal authority, that she would restrict herself to small town politics and not go to the county offices or board meetings. I was creating an entirely fictional scenario where she was not only without legal power, but incapable of getting it, whether by choice or because she lived in my ancap libertopia and there was no power to be got.

            1. Another way to put it — if her collecting was limited to Beanie Babies or bottle caps, she’d just be that eccentric old lady down the street who passed out tofu crispies on Halloween. Unfortunately for us, she collects power, and just like people who don’t know what to do with their thousands of Beanie Babies and end up having to move to a bigger house to store them all, she doesn’t want to actually do any good with that power, she just wants to be acknowledged in the Guinness book of world records as having the ultimate collection of power.

          4. If you don’t put your trash cans away here, the bear punishes you.

            1. That’s barely even a euphemism.

            2. There’s that. But sprinkle or spray ammonia on the garbage before putting the lid on, and the bears learn to stay away from those cans.

            3. That’s just the bare necessities of living where you do.

        2. she’d both tell and be the butt of endless jokes

          Well, you’re half right.

          I have seen no evidence that Hillary has a sense of humor.

    2. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $95 dollar per hour.
      I work through this Website. Go here____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $95 per hour.

      I work through this website____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $95 per hour.

      I work through this website____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    5. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Just try it out on the following website…
      Go here________________ http://www.Earnmore9.com

  2. This constant misogyny sickens me!

  3. Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton’s exchange with Abedin “reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly,” which he describes as “deeply problematic”

    I’ve noticed these kinds of journalistic tics over the last couple of decades. Certain words or sometimes a turn of phrase is used to describe a politician’s problems or scandals when the journalist generally supports the politician they’re forced to report on.

    “Troubling” is a word and “unfortunate” is another. “Unfortunate” is often used in conjunction with a public gaffe. For instance, I haven’t heard any journalists refer to anything Trump has said as “unfortunate”.

    1. “Problematic” seems to be some sort of code word**. I’m not sure for what, though.

      ** Not literally a secret code, but it seems to have a specific and special connotation for some people.

      1. Problematic is a signal that you are hip and current with the latest progademic doublespeak.

        Like “utilize” instead of “use”, it signals that you are current on jargon. Whether that’s a good signal or not depends on the listener.

        1. Or spend and product (singular). Or optics instead of appearances.

      2. Well, of course it’s not a secret now that you’ve gone and blabbed about it.

      3. I’ve noticed it too, and I think that ultimately it’s used when what’s wrong in a given picture is so obvious and infuriating that to write it down would be to appear to actively be on the attack even though you’re just citing facts. It gives some appearance of impartiality when you know for a fact your readers are not going to be impartial about it. It saves you from regurgitating talking points so they don’t appear as stale, or just takes them as-read.

        At least that’s my take on it.

        1. It also implies that the issue is so obvious that everyone in the audience must be recognizing it, short-circuiting debate over whether the “problematic” subject it really a problem at all.

          It’s a word in support of the hivemind.

          1. Pretty much. You could fit an entire other article into the word ‘problematic’ I think. Or, alternatively, you could just replace it mentally with ‘fucking obvious’ kind of like how I replace the phrase Dog Whistle in political news with ‘ludicrous strawman argument’.

    2. “Troubling” is a word and “unfortunate” is another. “Unfortunate” is often used in conjunction with a public gaffe. For instance, I haven’t heard any journalists refer to anything Trump has said as “unfortunate”.

      I think Clinton herself called Trump an “unfortunate development” (this doesn’t really counter anything you said)

      1. It’s certainly not an absolute, but over the years of listening to NPR, when a democratic politician gets into trouble, the word “troubling” and “unfortunate” starts to roll out.

    3. That’s a great point. Those are all words you would use to describe someone you support.

      I’d like to see more realistic descriptions of politicians, like replacing those terms with “asinine”, “cringe-worthy”, “morally repugnant”, etc.

    4. They’re fencing foils. You can’t actually draw blood, so blunt the thing and the other person yells “ow!” and feigns a wounding.

    1. Notice the weasel words “potentially work-related.” That way if anything does come out that wasn’t released they can just say “Oh, we didn’t deem that to be ‘potentially work related’. You know how it is, you set up a private email system to avoid FOIA requirements, some ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ comes along and gets right wing judges to force you to release your work emails anyway, you try to comply with court orders, but sometime you miss things. No big whoop, ‘phake skandul’…”

  4. She wanted the simplicity of using just one device. Get over it, Republicans!

    1. I love how this issue has not gone away.

      1. It basically has. No-one is paying the least amount of attention to it outside a few dark corners of internet hatred,

        1. And most frustratingly, any rational Team Red candidate could have a field day with this. Coming out of Trump’s gob, it’s just one more stupid noise in the crowd.

          1. I disagree. The story has been in the news for years. It is not going to impact the election even if she is indicted (which I highly will happen), but her actions are obvious to everyone who is not willfully blind to them. The email issue is so obscene that it could destroy the current structure of the Democratic Party.

            1. My friend’s hubby, an IT professional, said he would not vote for Hillary just based on the email thing alone (they’re both dyed-in-the-wool TEAM BLUE!! supporters).

              He’s probably changed his mind, but it’s telling that he even said this.

              1. I assume he will begrudgingly vote for her, just like many others will. They will feel sick and shamed for four years.

          2. No other Team Red candidate would go after her on this at all, though.

            1. The might, after she wins the election.

              It works out great for the Republican establishment if Hillary wins the White House. Trump is vanquished and they get to start the impeachment hearings by Feburary 2017 effectively neutralizing Hillary’s power before she even takes office. The only danger is if Hillary picks a halfway competent VP then they have to be careful not to force Hillary to resign too early and give the VP a chance to do one or two things well and gain enough popularity to win a term in the whitehouse for themselves.

    2. Is this what Obama meant by “Most Transparent Administration Ever”?

  5. She’s skating. I’ll say that again.

    1. Maybe the FBI will force ask Apple to look at the server.

    2. No – this is completely clean investigation. Pure coincidence that Lynch and Bill Clinton had a sit down this week.

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/06…..nix-video/

      1. “As I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix.”

        I bet.

    3. Yeah. As someone pointed out earlier, Lois Lerner got away clean, so Hillary is even more too big to fail.

  6. This pisses me off for personal reasons. I cannot tell you how bogged down we get trying to fulfill all the USG security/risk assessment requirements. It’s literally 1/2 of our working day to make sure Uncle Sam has all his vulnerabilities and archival needs accounted for. We have people who work here whose sole job is to analyze security for all our systems, down to individual WordPress plugins we install on our test environments.

    1. You’re just Little People.

    2. If, say, 5% of the folks like you wrote your congresscreatures ….

      1. My Congress creature is Don Beyer, renowned Hillary-lover. And, judging by his office staff, with whom I interacted last month, he is playing the deep DC-insider game (which is not a surprise, given he’s been a fucking car dealer in NoVA for dog knows how long).

        Mayhaps I could write to Amash or Massie…

    3. Yes, me too. I have to complete “Records Management” training every year. Retention of federal records (that is emails among other things) is required by law. Break that law and the penalty is up three years in prison. Unless your name is Clinton.

      1. I don’t know if you work with any FOOs/political appointees, but we do. They were shocked – shocked! – at all the rules and regulations and hoops that were in place for just about everything. And they’ve spent their entire tenure here trying to skirt around these regulations. Or just outright ignoring them (like how they went into production with a CRM tool that has yet to be approved by the legal department).

        1. Heck, I am shocked at all the rules and regulations as well, but I follow them because I don’t want to go to jail. Besides that, if you promise to be “the most transparent administration in history” then you should joyously embrace FOIA.

          I don’t much like Hillary (obviously) but I would be willing to give her a pass on the email thing if she sent a hand full of emails via private email because of exigent circumstances. Her actions were just a big “fuck you” to the law and to the American people. The cherry on top was her unilateral deletion of 30,000 emails that she deemed “private”. That action ought to act as a sentencing enhancement factor: three years in the klink for every email on her private server, to run sequentially, 180,000 years in prison is about right.

          1. I don’t much like Hillary (obviously) but I would be willing to give her a pass on the email thing if she sent a hand full of emails via private email because of exigent circumstances.

            Exactly. This wasn’t Al Gore making a few donor calls from a white house phone, or Colin Powell sending a quick State dept email from his gmail account on his personal phone, this was a concerted effort to literally conduct the entire volume of her State email business out of band.

          2. I don’t much like Hillary (obviously) but I would be willing to give her a pass on the email thing if she sent a hand full of emails via private email because of exigent circumstances.

            Exactly. This wasn’t Al Gore making a few donor calls from a white house phone, or Colin Powell sending a quick State dept email from his gmail account on his personal phone, this was a concerted effort to literally conduct the entire volume of her State email business out of band.

  7. She knew the friggin rules. She signed a document acknowledging that she knew the rules on day one.

    Besides that, the law is clear, it makes no difference whether she knew the rules. She is guilty. If she is not indicted, there is no rule of law in the US.

    1. 1. She didn’t know the rules. Not even the people who are responsible for making and enforcing the rules know the rules. Your company’s head of IT doesn’t even know all the company rules, let alone trying to parse the multiple federal requirements for security and archiving. Much of which is out-of-date, goes counter to best practices, and is contradictory because different agencies are responsible for issuing rules and they don’t consult each other and changes on a whim in response to the latest info-leak scandal.

      2. The law is not clear. And it does make a difference as to whether or not she knew the rules – as it should for anyone else. The myth that the law is simple, available, and legible to all is just that, a myth. And if the ‘rule of law’ is not to be a tyranny, then it needs to take that into consideration.

      I’m not defending her actions – she violated enough practices to have known that she was crossing over into law-breaking territory – but this blanket ‘the law’s the law’ stance is unbecoming of libertarians. Oftimes the law is is deeply evil and just because in this instance it appears legit and the target is someone we don’t like is no reason to drop our native mistrust of authority in all its forms.

      1. but this blanket ‘the law’s the law’ stance is unbecoming of libertarians

        I disagree. If there is any chance of getting simple, clear laws that fairly apply to everyone, what better way than to wield them against those who can effect change? Wielding bad law against We the People alone and exempting our leaders from the fallout of their own bad legislation is exactly the opposite of justice. It is tyranny.

      2. You are wrong. Federal employees receiving mandatory annual training on records management. No federal employee can persuasively plead ignorance to their responsibility to retain emails. Every federal employee knows that emails must be retained and archived. Not that ignorance would be an acceptable excuse in any case.

        She never sent a single email except on her personal server, for the entire duration of her term as SoS. Every one of those emails was a federal record. She willfully and egregiously violated that law.

        Sending classified information via her personal server violates the FRA and a whole different law, and she is guilty of that as well.

        If she is not indicted, there is no rule of law in the US.

        1. Do political appointees have to go through the same training as the civil service cogs?

          1. They are supposed to.

            Naturally, when they are from one of the Houses Royal, that’s just another law that’s beneath them.

      3. I disagree. You don’t have to know all the byzantine ‘regulatory strictures’ but still be supremely aware that as Secretary of State, running a personal email server in your basement to conduct the People’s Business (while being on record as saying that you’re doing it to make sure the “personal isn’t accessible”– which I’m annoyed I have to even say it, but I’mma say it: means she knew that the public IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCESSIBLE) shows not just poor judgement, but a crass disregard of the very spirit of the rules, let alone any technical sub-strictures the various regulations demand.

        I can’t recite the entire text of Sarbanes Oxley, but if I work for a public corporation, I’m pretty sure all them emails is supposed to be archived and accessible for like, a long time and stuff. If my CEO orders me to delete, destroy and hide stuff, I don’t have to pull up the text of the law to know that something doesn’t feel kosher.

        Hillary sells herself and her entire candidacy on her “experience in public office”. Well which is it, is she experienced enough to know that her daily business is subject to FOIA requests, or is she so innocent and totally all outside-the-beltway ‘n shit that she just by-golly didn’t know about all them fancy rules ‘n regulations?

      4. Identifying the fact that the current state of the law is such that the mens rea requirement has been removed from this law is in no way shape or form endorsing having laws which lack a mens rea requirement.

        Further while it is true that no one knows all of the specific details of the law it is absolutely true that the basic elements that government records must be preserved on government controlled servers and classified information can never be sent to or stored on private devices is well known, well publicized, and she was required to take training classes and sign that she understood those laws.

        She quite clearly broke the law and did so knowingly and while we can agree that crimes should require that one be generally aware that they are breaking the law before they can be charged the reality is that current law is not that way and if some random GS 12 was caught accidentally carrying classified information out of the building it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference at his trial, he’d be going to jail for espionage so not charging Hillary is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.

      5. this blanket ‘the law’s the law’ stance is unbecoming of libertarians

        So, is the rule of law unbecoming of libertarians?

        1. Legislation does not equal law and the ‘rule of legislation’ is something libertarians have always held in contempt.

          1. Legislation does not equal law

            Actually, that’s exactly what legislation is.

      6. Here’s the problem with “she didn’t know the rules” and “the law isn’t clear”.

        Ignorance of the law is no defense.

      7. deeply evil and just because in this instance it appears legit and the target is someone we don’t like is no reason to drop our native mistrust of authority in all its forms.

        To add one more thought, this is the very problem. The deeply evil laws are put in place, touted and defended by the very people breaking them. That makes those people in positions wielding the authority all the more evil and we should give no quarter.

        1. And using their tactics against them destroys what makes us the better guys.

      8. Those of you saying that ‘she had to know that running a private server . . . – I agree with you. Its this idea though that ‘she signed a piece of paper, she had ‘training’ so she knew every byzantine turn of law surrounding this that I am calling into question.

        I’ve been one of those Federal employees – the training we get is a basically a powerpoint that says ‘don’t access a private email account on government computers without permission, don’t accept gifts, you’re not allowed to use a thumb drive’.

        The regulations are insanely long and complex and vary by agency.

        Yes, she’s undoubtedly for multiple *knowing* violations – but that’s not what that post is saying. That post is saying that she (and by extension, everyone else who has access to government IT) should have read and memorized multiple hundred page manuals written by multiple agencies and comply with every last detail or its perfectly all right to toss ’em in jail. Just because ‘its the law’.

        And we break the law, gleefully, when the law is an ass.

        1. Yeah well, ‘ignorance of the law’ is not a defense for the average citizen and don’t see how it shouldn’t apply to her.

          I understand what you’re saying A, but I get the feeling you’re going Brian Boitano here; that is, skating.

        2. The rules are not all that byzantine. Heck, the actual law is not all that difficult to understand. Hillary is a lawyer, and she is brilliant according to the talking heads.

          U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter101, Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b

          (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

          (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

      9. And it does make a difference as to whether or not she knew the rules – as it should for anyone else.

        Um, as SecState–especially someone who’s been involved with the levers of power as long as her–and as someone with a security clearance, it’s a goddamn requirement for her to know the rules. There’s literally training requirements on this every fucking year. There’s no reason anyone with a security clearance, for that matter, should be ignorant of the rules surrounding information security. And the best part? 18 USC 793 covers “gross negligence” so even mens rea doesn’t apply.

        It’s common fucking knowledge within the government that you don’t allow spillage of classified info outside of the siprnet and JWICS networks, and if you see it, to report it to your security manager immediately so they can figure out what happened. Not doing so can result in fines and imprisonment, for the plebes at least, if the breach is determined to be serious enough.

        Oftimes the law is is deeply evil and just because in this instance it appears legit and the target is someone we don’t like is no reason to drop our native mistrust of authority in all its forms.

        This is just well-poisoning. Granted, not all of the classified info was top secret, but some of it was and putting it outside its network is the kind of shit that can get people killed.

    2. There is no rule of law in the US.

      1. This cannot be repeated often enough.

        1. There is no rule of law in the US!

  8. Listen, this just demonstrates what a forward thinker she is; as Secy of State, she was already concerned about the archives for her Presidential Library.

  9. Sanders’ decision to lay off the emails seems like a missed opportunity.

    Well, Bernie Sanders is, and always has been, a very dumb individual.

  10. Sanders’ decision to lay off the emails seems like a missed opportunity.

    Well, Bernie Sanders is, and always has been, a very dumb individual.

    1. The squirrels are still feeling the Bern, i guess.

    2. Don’t forget lazy. He went to college then didn’t do shit for 2 decades. Maybe beating Hillary just seemed like too much effort.

      1. He didn’t really want to be president, he just wanted credit for inspiring the American Bolshevik Revolution when the official State historians write the history of the Revolution several years from now.

      2. Don’t forget lazy. He went to college then didn’t do shit for 2 decades.

        That’s not true! He wrote a bunch of ‘zine articles about how women fantasize about being raped, got kicked out of a commune for refusing to do any work, fathered an illegitimate kid, failed at being even a mediocre carpenter, and racked up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt that he’s been making minimum payments on ever since. In the process, he somehow avoided even accidentally learning even the most basic details of history, economics, and mathematics. It takes hard work to be that much of a useless human being.

        1. That’s not true! He wrote a bunch of ‘zine articles about how women fantasize about being raped, got kicked out of a commune for refusing to do any work, fathered an illegitimate kid, failed at being even a mediocre carpenter, and racked up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt that he’s been making minimum payments on ever since.

          Wait, are you talking about Bernie’s past or his economic plan for America?

          1. Since a very foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of his little mind, both.

        2. I actually like the part where you mention being kicked out of a commune for not doing any work. I actually have some slight regard for small-scale communists, if for no other reason than because they can locate and punch their ‘top men’ daily, which is perhaps the only way that ethos can function.

          1. Communes can work because you can kick people out who don’t pull their weight.

            1. And because joining is voluntary in the first place.

              1. Yes to both points, hence the slight regard. At that level it’s just a contract between individuals to share property rights with provisions, so I don’t really care.

            2. its funny, most socialists think ‘True Socialism’ (and the withering away of the state) won’t be possible until socialism has no boundary.

              Real life suggests that ‘True Socialism’ can only exist as enclaves within the free market.

  11. Semi (mostly)-OT: Clinton Campaign Spends $26M on Campaign Ads in Swing States, Trump Campaign Spends… $0

    Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate the presidential battleground-state airwaves, outspending Donald Trump and pro-Trump groups this month, $26 million to $0, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta.

    For the week, it’s $7.5 million to $0 in the eight battlegrounds of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. And when you add future ad reservations, it’s $140 million to $0.

    But let’s overturn Citizens United so we can get the money out of politics.

    1. I don’t want Trump to win, but if he does, it will be interesting to see how people reconcile that with the belief that elections just go to the one with the deepest pockets.

      1. Easy, they’ll just say that Trump spent more money and damn the facts. Duh.

    2. And while she’s spending that money, Trump is catching up in the swing states.

  12. deeply problematic behavior = “shit which would land YOU in a federal prison for decades”

    1. I cannot imagine a more egregious example of a violation of the federal records act. Violation of the FRA also makes the beast ineligible to hold public office.

  13. She shouldn’t smile, it just makes her look less human

    1. Right? Like a reptile wearing a human suit. Whenever I see a picture of her with a big grin on her face, it looks like she’s about to unhinge her jaw to swallow a live baby just off-camera.

  14. She shouldn’t smile, it just makes her look less human

    She looks like the witch in the gingerbread house, as she contemplates putting Hansel and Gretel into the oven.

  15. Leave her alone.

    IT’S HER TURN!

  16. I look forward to having our first 1-term president since Carter.

    1. Do you mean one four year term, or one lifetime term? I’d take bets but I’m not sure what odd’s to put on those options.

    2. Bush the First says Hi.

    3. A country stupid enough to re-elect Bush and Obama is stupid enough to re-elect Hillary.

  17. “Hasn’t she been through enough?!?”

    -actual Hillary supporter from work quote

    1. “One could say the same about Libya.”
      “One could say the same about Chris Stevens.”
      “One could say the same about Monica.”

      etc

    2. Really, she’s been put through her own personal Auschwitz.

    3. You were reading your stories to them?

    4. Hasn’t she been through enough?!?

      Not until she completes a prison term, no.

  18. “Hasn’t she been through enough?!?”

    She appears to still be in one piece, so… no.

  19. I basically profit close to $12k-$14k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 3h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it.

    Follow Here =========> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  20. There’s one very important unanswered question: Why was Clinton so concerned about supposedly keeping all her emails private that she was prepared to ignore her oath of office and flout State Department rules. Would her “private” emails show her guilty of something even more illegal?

    She’s certainly demonstrated her total incompetence as Secretary of State – the world is in a far worse state than when she started. What’s worse than total incompetence? Is there anything worse than treason which would warrant such a move?

  21. The law is pretty clear.

    U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter101, Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b

    (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

  22. there are really three things that are helping hillary here, and they all can be simplified by the term “willful blindness”.

    1) partisan politics. i can’t count the number of times i hear someone ask if a specific issue is politics or if there’s something real going on. well, it’s always politics first with republicans and democrats, so if you don’t want to believe something, you can easily turn your mind off and focus only on that part of it.

    2) perry mason/matlock/law and order + watergate = smoking gun. there’s rarely a smoking gun, but people have been trained to wait for it so they don’t have to actually look at the evidence and make a reasonable determination. if there’s a thousand small pieces of evidence that form a pretty convincing picture of what happened, you can revert back to #1 and pull on any thread until it comes loose and say the whole thing falls apart, simply because that’s what you want to believe.

    3) personal e-mails. the moment someone says “personal e-mails”, as if that’s what this is actually about, people think of their own e-mails and how they wouldn’t want the government rummaging around in them, so they side with hillary. it’s the same way in which people relate economics with how they feel about their own job, regardless of the bigger picture.

    all of the above amount to willful blindness, and all prevent hillary from having to pay the full price for her actions.

  23. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  24. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  25. http://shareitdownloadapp.net/ Such intelligent work on the subject and ideal way of writing here. I am really impressed! This post is a helpful overview of the particular topic and very actionable. Interesting approach! http://shareitdownloadapp.net/…..dows-78xp/

  26. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.