MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

More Hillary Clinton Email News, More Hillary Clinton Falsehoods

C-SPANC-SPANIt seems like every time we learn something new about Hillary Clinton’s email, we find out that something Hillary Clinton had previously said isn’t true.

Case in point: Clinton’s decision earlier this year to turn over to the State Department a trove of work-related emails from the private email account she relied on exclusively during her time as Secretary of State.

Clinton said she provided the emails in response to an unremarkable request for records that went out to everyone who has held the job. 

Yet as The Washington Post reported earlier this week, that doesn’t appear to be correct:

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

When Clinton was asked by a reporter from the Des Moines Register about the difference between her version of the handover and the Post’s report, she…didn’t have anything to say.

"I don't know that. I can't answer that," Clinton answered. "All I know is that they sent the same letter to everybody. That's my understanding."

Then there’s the matter of her email server, which was recently turned over to the FBI. That server had been wiped clean of Clinton’s email after her aides went through its contents and selected thousands of pages of correspondence to turn over. Clinton said that some emails from the server had not been turned over because they were personal in nature. But in August she certified, in a signed document, that all work-related emails from the account had been given to the Department of State.

FBI investigators, however, have been able to recover some emails from the erased server, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. And according to The New York Times, “F.B.I. investigators have recovered work-related and personal emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton said had been deleted from the server.” [Bold added.]

Huh.

I have no idea what, if anything, investigators will find on Clinton’s server, but the fact that she refused for months to turn it over to investigators suggests that there’s something on it she’d rather not be made public. 

But as I have argued before, what matters in this story, at least so far, isn’t the content of the emails; it’s how Clinton has behaved and responded as the story has unfolded.

Instead of being direct and forthcoming, she has responded with arrogance and inaccuracies, repeatedly making claims that simply don’t hold up when examined. The email story, in other words, has shown us how Clinton responds to the sort of basic questioning and scrutiny that she would receive every minute of every day as President of the United States—and that response is revealing, and damning, enough.

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.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Believe me. I always tell the truth.

  • Illocust||

    Damn, she's actually going to go down for this. Like actually serve jail time for a federal crime. Holy shit, I didn't think it was possible.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's a joke, right?

  • Timon 19||

    Don't get ahead of yourself. That's still a long road, and politics can pothole the shit out of it.

  • WTF||

    Nope. In fact, she will likely be the Democrat nominee, and possibly our next President, because the Republican nominee will be a "dangerous extremist". Like Mitt Romney.

  • Drake||

    I really think it depends on Biden's decision. If he decides to get in and campaign as Obama's third term, the leash comes off on the FBI Clinton investigation.

  • Rich||

    "I'm ridin' with Biden!"

  • Citizen X||

    Diamond Joe 2016: a Trans-Am in every garage, a six pack of Coors in every fridge!

  • Sevo||

    And a woman groped at every presser!

  • Citizen X||

    A grow lamp in every closet!

  • Drake||

    I've been all over this country from Wilmington to Rehoboth...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04L8Sf3K4Lw

  • Citizen X||

    And a Whitesnake cassette in every Walkman.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is like you all forget Biden was the spokesman for a classy brand of cognac.

  • ATXChappy||

    Huh? Diamond Joe is one of the architects of the modern war on drugs. If I'm not mistaken, he sponsored the legislation that created the Drug Czar.

  • Rich||

    Huh? He can *still* grope women!

  • NYC2AZ||

    A shotgun blast through every door and two blasts off every balcony!

  • Zeb||

    That's probably true. The establishment needs someone other than Bernie or the other losers running. One more reason to hope for a Biden run.

    Actually, no. Better give up hope of anything non-stupid happening.

  • Paul.||

    With Hillary being weakened by this [latest] scandal, it's possible the Dems will realize that they're in a time of crisis, declare an emergency and have Obama serve a third term.

  • sly311||

    I've been saying that for a very long time. Yes. A distinct possibility.

  • SimonJester||

    ^ This. Provoke a war with Iran or Russia (Putin is always good for it) and you have all you need.

  • Pulseguy||

    It would be easy to do, because everything can be done with an Executive Order? It isn't as if you need Congress to agree to anything.

  • soflarider||

    How dense would potential Democrat contenders have to be not to see the opportunity this should open up?

  • Rasilio||

    The problem is outside of Biden who is there as a potential Democratic candidate that will be acceptable to the party establishment?

    There is basically no one. No high profile governors with national profiles who could stand a chance. No high profile Congress critters that would stand a chance. Their cupboard is bare.

    If Biden won't or can't jump into the race it is basically down to Hillary or Bernie and frankly the party establishment would prefer to see a Republican win than Bernie. I suppose if push game to shove they could try running Gore or Kerry again but they'd both lose to pretty much any Republican nominated

  • Gray Ghost||

    No high profile governors with national profiles who could stand a chance. No high profile Congress critters that would stand a chance.

    Getting a little late in the campaign game for them to show up, but you don't think Mark Warner or Fauxcahontas would have a shot?

  • Animal||

    Mark Warner, maybe. Lieawatha, no way.

  • SimonD||

    I've been saying for months that Mark Warner is probably itching every time he sees Mrs. Clinton lying her ass off (or maybe Evan Bayh as well).

  • brady949||

    I always assumed if Biden gets in the race it's because the Justice Department is about to come down hard on her.

  • Paul.||

    Phrasing...

  • Animal||

    BOOM!

  • Citizen X||

    Anyway, i think the Monica Lewinski scandal made one thing clear: Hillary doesn't go down.

  • sarcasmic||

    Q) What's the difference between a job and a wife?

    A) After a few years the job still sucks.

  • CharlieInCO||

    If you hadn't made that joke, I would have had to. Thank you.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    She'll fall and bump her head again, and reluctantly suspend her campaign to "spend quality time with her grandchild".

  • sly311||

    You mean quality time with her neurologist. The woman has some real neuro issues; besides mental issues.

  • Faceless Woodchipper||

    Someone around here said it would be Bill who has the medical emergency, not Hill. That way she can nobly sacrifice her big moment and graciously clear a path for Chelsea.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Don't believe it until the indictment actually comes down. She and her husband have too much pull with their political machine to allow her to actually be charged with anything serious, if such a thing happens at all.

    It's no coincidence that the "email czar" Kerry appointed to oversee the investigation of Hillary's emails has maxed out her political contributions to Hillary's campaign this year. It's also no coincidence that she was appointed AFTER it came out that Hillary had Top Secret information pass through her unencrypted system, which should mean charges against her AND against the individuals that jumped the air gap and removed the original classification markings. There's been rumors coming out for weeks now that this czar is pressuring classification authorities to downgrade information that was originally Confidential in nature down to Privileged.

  • Pulseguy||

    They won't indict her....unless it becomes clear she won't be the nominee. If she is not the nominee then old scores might get settled.

  • Michael Price||

    "It's no coincidence that the "email czar" Kerry appointed to oversee the investigation of Hillary's emails has maxed out her political contributions to Hillary's campaign this year."
    Ok, that means that with all this other stuff we should hear the end of this "fake scandal" bullshit from liberals right?

  • ATXChappy||

    The government will go into safe mode and work to protect it's "credibility" before she goes down for anything serious. At most she will get the Petraeus treatment. Anything beyond that, the argument will go, will be too painful for the country to endure. Which really just means that confidence in the government will fall further than it already has. And, a bureaucratic and political class that wants more power, control, and money can't have that now can they. So, I honestly believe that the more egregious her acts, the more cover she will receive from the gov.

  • JBSparks||

    That's why she's not taking any serious interviews. She's too busy reviewing her emails, that she no doubt backed up, to devise a defense.

    Really, my personal email and work email are backed up. If I thought there was a chance they couldn't be recovered I would eliminate that possibility. How important do you think it was to Hillary, personally, to have a backup of all her email, private and professional? She's got a copy. She's reviewing it now on a laptop that has been disabled from the network.

    The only difference between her and I in this regard, is that I have always assumed anything I do over the network or that is stored on any hard drive can be retrieved should the authorities want to see it bad enough. Hillary thought she could get around that caveat.

    There are other factors that should have The FBI suspicious. The Lois Lerner-like coincidental, accidently loss of data is telling. The stone-walling too. If she doesn't go to prison, something is terribly awry, which, it is.

  • Señor Loco||

    If you're not being sarcastic, don't hold you're breath waiting for her to ever serve any time. They used to call ol' Ronnie the "Teflon president". Shit, he didn't have anything in comparison to this ol' bag and her just as shifty spouse. They seem to be able to skate through every shenanigan they pull.

  • Rich||

    The email story, in other words, has shown us how Clinton responds to the sort of basic questioning and scrutiny that she would receive every minute of every day as President of the United States

    *or* as an inmate at Leavenworth.

  • MC Guru||

    Leavenworth is a men's prison. Hillary is not a man (gender or species)

  • Drake||

    she has responded with arrogance and inaccuracies...

    Could be the title of her biography. She gets caught in a lie at least weekly and is still the Democrat front-runner.

  • Rich||

    "The Hope of Arrogance"

  • WTF||

    She could be filmed slitting the throats of toddlers on the Capitol steps and her followers would still support her.

  • Sevo||

    Well, it would be Bush's fault if she did.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    What difference, at this point, would it make?

  • ThomasD||

    As if only.

    No, the media would spin the story into an indictment of the parents.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Her supporters would not respect her if she were honest and aboveboard.

  • Rich||

    "I don't know that. I can't answer that," Clinton answered.

    "Other than, of course, WDATPDIM?"

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Still a fake scandal.

    Official documents were sent to her non-government email for years and no one said a word about it? How is that possible? I am still waiting for that answer.

  • Rich||

    Please be patient. H said all the email questions will be answered.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    From what I've been reading, it appears the email server was primarily used mostly between her and her aides--it's apparent from some of the emails that have been released that Hillary used it for a lot of mundane crap like telling Huma to bring her iced tea. Because the aides had .gov accounts set up, they would act as sort of an administrative firewall for State and others to send emails, and the aides would just pass stuff on to her private email from there. That appears to also be why there was a demand for her aides to be able to receive classified information on their smartphones. In the meantime, she could pass off her private email to friends, donors, whoever, as a means of staying in touch with her, and it was assumed no one would be the wiser that it was being used to conduct State Dept business.

    Apparently very few people even knew she was using private email server for official business until Congress began subpoenaing communication records on Benghazi in 2014, and it came out at that time that she didn't even have a .gov account set up.

  • ThomasD||

    " Hillary used it for a lot of mundane crap like telling Huma to bring her iced tea."

    And Hillary somehow "accidentally" managed to intercalate classified material into such communications.

  • CharlieInCO||

    Well, we know it happened. "How is that possible" is a good question, but we know it happened. Ecco.

  • sarcasmic||

    Republicans did it first!

  • Stilgar||

    And what of the three predecessors?

  • Rich||

    "Uh, huh. But *you* got *caught*."

  • R C Dean||

    Stil, as someone who works in a heavily regulated industry, I would advise against using "But we've always broken the law!" as a defense.

  • Paul.||

    Uhm, that heavily regulated industry is in the private sector. Different rules, RC, different rules.

  • SimonJester||

    This is, unfortunately, true.

    If she had even had the idea of doing what she did while working for the Firm that holds my soul and would have been fired and humiliated and sued. Even if she was the owner.

    But, public sector.

  • ThomasD||

    Hillary's three predecessors used private email servers for all their correspondences?

    Got a link?

  • Jim in Denver||

    The law was changed after they left office. And Hillary knew it too because she fired a staffer for not using their own .gov email.

  • Raven Nation||

    War on women?

  • ||

    Main point of this article?

    Suderman is a mysoginist.

    /derp

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

  • mfckr||

    I still expect this will all be conveniently forgotten about and slip down a collective memory hole somehow, once it becomes time to crown Hillary.

  • Curt||

    Lying Liar Tells More Lies!!!!!111!!!

    The sad thing is the Dems just don't give a damn. They are concerned that this might affect her electability, but they simply don't care about what she has done or the lies she has told. I'm as skeptical as the next guy and I believe all politicians lie. But, she just goes so far beyond. She's the embodiment of the Shaggy song, "It Wasn't Me."

  • ||

    I imagine that's more of a Bill song. Biggest difference between the two is, Bill has the charisma to get away with it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That server had been wiped clean of Clinton’s email after her aides went through its contents and selected thousands of pages of correspondence to turn over.

    What, like with a rag or something?

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    What, like with a rag or something?

    That should be made into a political ad.

    Fade in on Hillary babbling about something. She shrieks, "I'm going to clean up the mess in Washington...like with a rag or something." Fade out.

  • ||

    Where is Vince Foster?

  • sly311||

    He knew too much then. Imagine? Way back then.

  • Paul.||

    I want the privilege of having my loyal aides getting to decide what evidence to hand over in a government investigation.

  • Akira||

    That part always baffled me.

    If someone got busted for child porn, would the FBI say, "oh hey there, we noticed that you had some kiddie porn on your hard drive... Would you mind submitting all of the other pornography you have so that we can look it over? Oh, take your time. Just give us a portion every month; we don't want to cramp your schedule or anything."

  • ||

    simple enough to fix. my government non-accountability flowchart says have a crony in the FBI violate her civil rights during the investigation.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The email story, in other words, has shown us how Clinton responds to the sort of basic questioning and scrutiny that she would receive every minute of every day as President of the United States—and that response is revealing, and damning, enough.

    Ding. Ding Ding. Voters are sick of her bullshit, period. It seems that Obama might have been the only person that could win a national election for the Democratic Party.

    Because their national bench is an absolute joke. Crazy Uncle Joe? A demented socialist? A failed governor? At least the Republicans are giving their party some actual choices.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    It seems that Obama might have been the only person that could win a national election for the Democratic Party.

    Nah. I still believe whoever wins the Dem nomination will be the next President, even if it's Joe Biden.

    Who do the Republicans have? A few people with zero political experience? Somebody with the last name Bush? Yeah, Rand Paul is better than the average GOP politician, but it doesn't look like 2016 is his year, to put it kindly.

  • WTF||

    The Dems will win, but not because of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the competing candidates. It's all about turning out your supporters to vote for their TEAM, and the Dems have a much better turn-out-the-vote ground game than the Repubs do.

  • KDN||

    And much more loyal membership, IMO.

  • ||

    + freshly minted legalized - or not so - immigrants

  • ||

    I don't know, I think a lot of the Dem turnout was based on the Obama cult of personality. I don't think it can go on the way it has for the last two presidential elections.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I figure the Repubs will do a little better in the popular vote and electoral college than they did in 2012, but the Dems will still win comfortably enough.

  • R C Dean||

    Elections are decided after Labor Day.

    People forget McCain was leading (narrowly, but leading) Obama until the Big Dump in the financial markets and his reaction.

  • Akira||

    It's true that they'll be hard pressed to replicate the Obama "charm".

    Some of the devoted progressives I know, who enthusiastically voted for Obama both times, have admitted that both parties suck, but the Dems are the least worst. That's still a notable change from a few years ago, when they were in love with the guy.

  • Zeb||

    I'd say especially if it's Biden.

  • R C Dean||

    A failed governor?

    Don't forget the Affirmative Action Queen of Harvard Law School.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But as I have argued before, what matters in this story, at least so far, isn’t the content of the emails; it’s how Clinton has behaved and responded as the story has unfolded."

    I think what matters in this story is the way it's being covered--and I think that's what matters to Hillary, too.

    He behavior draws stories out far beyond their shelf life. By the time the juicy bits hit the media, people are so sick of the story, they stop paying attention.

    I'm even starting to tune out--and I despise Hillary. I think she's a crook.

  • ||

    Apparently, according to the law, she broke it.

    How hasn't she been indicted yet?

    Seriously asking. What are they looking for?

    Meanwhile, she got to throw some shlep in prison for a video while lying it instigated a fake story riot in Benghazi.

    Justice. How does it work?

  • tarran||

    According to Ken White, criminal investigations at the Federal level are pretty leisurely affairs. They grind slowly and produce ultra-fine powder.

  • Citizen X||

    According to Ken White, the commentariat here all deserve to get punched in the dick.

    I guess what i'm saying is, his observations are pretty astute.

  • Zeb||

    Punched in the dick. With love.

  • Citizen X||

    With ambivalence, anyway.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How hasn't she been indicted yet?

    Seriously asking. What are they looking for?"

    They're looking to see if she wins the Presidency, in which case, the only way to address this will be through impeachment.

    She's known to be vindictive and arbitrary against federal employees who get in her way, too. See "Travelgate".

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

    She's also known to use the FBI files to exploit any personal secrets of her enemies. See "Filegate".

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

    In fact, why would anybody in their right mind investigate her before they know whether she'll be President of the United States--when if you investigate her, you know she's going to do everything in her power as President of the United States to destroy you?

  • Rasilio||

    Actually it is more likely they are waiting to see if this is going to torpedo her election chances without charges being filed.

    While they wouldn't want a President Hillary mad at them they want a President Sanders or a President Bush/Carson/Fiorina/Cruz/Rubio even less.

    They'll only charge her if they become convinced she can't win and then it will be mostly to get her to step out of the way for a replacement not named Sanders

  • sarcasmic||

    No one is going to sign an indictment against her. That's suicide. Literally.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

    Hell, even if Sanders wins, she could end up in a cabinet level position.

    And if Biden wins, he's likely to take any slight against Hillary personally. He might pardon her as soon as he gets into office.

    Any Democrat wins, and Hillary is no longer in trouble and anyone who's been investigating her is in deep trouble with the boss.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Are we using drone strikes inside the US yet?

  • tarran||

    I'd be careful before getting jubilant.

    There's a set of work related emails they've recovered.

    There's a set of emails that Hillary turned over to the State Dept.

    Possibility A: If all the emails in the first set are also in the second set, then it makes Hillary look good.

    Possibility B: If a substantial portion of the first set are not in the second set, then Hillary is in the soup.

    Nothing in the FBI statement tells us whether A or B is what they found.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Possibility A: If all the emails in the first set are also in the second set, then it makes Hillary look good.

    Except the second set will have the metadata that the first set do not.

  • ||

    possibility C: B is true, but FBI covers it up, saying "All is Well".

    possibility D: B is true, FBI says it so, but no prosecution happens. Whether this hurts her chance at nomination and the presidency remains up in the air.

  • TheseusTheGreek||

    Come on, it's Hillary. We can guess with high probability which one it is.

  • R C Dean||

    Possibility A: If all the emails in the first set are also in the second set, then it makes Hillary look good.

    I thought some of the "recovered" emails were already new, not previously produced, but I haven't heard anything definitive.

    Frankly, I'm thinking C or D are the real questions.

  • SimonJester||

    But isn't the set that she turned over completely lacking in multiple months of emails? Wouldn't it push the bounds of believability to say she sent zero emails in such-and-such time frame?

    Also, I find it likely that th server wasn't wiped, but when she realized what this did, she went to her server team and had them make it look like she was just misunderstood but honest, rather than a dirty rotten cheater. I have zero faith in her, except in consolidating her own power.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats don't care about her lying. No political party has cared about a member who lies for any length of time. Oh, there have been short spans when one party or another 'reformed', but on the whole, politicians are liars. Not our parties, now. All parties, ever.

    What dismays me is that the Democrats apparently don't care that this scandal shows how imposingly STUPID Hillary is. This woman couldn't foresee that her political enemies would seize on her breaking the law about security while she was Secretary of State. It's her stupidity that disqualifies her.

    And the Democrats have a history of nominating outstandingly stupid people. Kerry is a prime example. He couldn't foresee that his record both in the military and as an anti-war protester was going to be a problem. He could have made the whole thing a non-issue with a simple statement, early in the campaign; "When I came back from Vietnam, I was a very angry you man and did some things that weren't wise." or words to that effect. No specifics, but it would cover testifying before Congress in the company of frauds, or throwing his medals on the White House lawn, or what-have-you.

    The Democrats pride themselves on being the party of the Smart People.

    HA!

  • Citizen X||

    Democrats are stupid but desperately want to appear smart; Republicans are stupid and don't care.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    +1 truck nuts.

  • mfckr||

    They don't have to be smart with a complicit media protecting them.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    But there's a limit to that. The media could protect them before Talk Radio and the internet. But the media also lost capability by not having competition, and now they are behind the curve and failing.

    Thirty years ago, nobosy would have heard about this, except for a few Washington insiders. Now? Hillary can't get shut of it, and her party is at a loss for what to do.

  • mfckr||

    Eh. For nearly 20 years it's been claimed that internet/talkradio is weakening the grip of mainstream media over narrative control, but I've become increasingly skeptical of this claim.

    I think there was a temporary destabilizing effect from the Internet as mainstream media outlets were slow to adapt to its emergence. But it seems most of the survivors have since adapted fine enough.

    As far as talk radio, I'm pretty sure increasingly less people listen to the radio at all and that it'll eventually die out like newspapers have been doing. Most of the radio stations here have gone kaput over the last decade except for a few big ones, and a slew of Spanish-only stations.

  • R C Dean||

    The media could protect them before Talk Radio and the internet.

    It still can, and does. Ex. A: Obama's re-election.

  • Zeb||

    Limited sample, but most of my lefty-Democrat friends seem to be supporting Bernie (which is disturbing). But also loathe Hillary (which is somewhat encouraging).
    Of course, they will probably manage to convince themselves that whoever the Republicans nominate is so evil that voting for whoever the Democrats end up with is the only choice.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Limited sample, but most of my lefty-Democrat friends seem to be supporting Bernie (which is disturbing). But also loathe Hillary (which is somewhat encouraging).

    Considering how thin the Democrat bench is this year, what other choices do they really have? Biden, god help us, appears to be the only relatively sane Dem alternative to either of them, and no one actually knows if he's motivated enough to run another campaign at his age.

    Maybe Jarrett is working on him behind the scenes and trying to put some steel in his spine to declare, but who knows what kind of influence she actually holds with him if that's the case. A long-time party loyalist like Biden doesn't just throw that grenade on the table when he knows damn well that the party's stalwarts have been lining up behind Hillary for months.

  • mfckr||

    He might run as a spoiler candidate to help Hillary. Thus depriving Bernie of being the only not-Hillary candidate for disaffected Democrats to flock to.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I don't think the splitter strategy would work as well for Hillary as it might for Jeb or Rubio, which is what Rove was trying to accomplish before Trump's numbers escalated. Splitter tactics only work if there are several candidates at play getting 5-10% apiece, which increases the odds for the establishment favorites, who can afford more advertising and campaign events.

    Bringing in Biden is a risky strategy because he's far more well-liked than Hillary and would be just as likely to siphon off her support among voters as he would Bernie's. Bernie's base are essentially Warrenites who view Bernie as a political cipher for her.

  • brady949||

    I'm seeing lots of Bernie stickers in LA.

  • Pulseguy||

    Most of my Dem friends think Bernie is the greatest think since this new Pope who is the greatest thing since...Buddha. Whom they all love, despite none of them know the first thing about Buddhism.

    If Hillary wins, and Bernie loses, a lot of youthful (stupid) energy goes away. And, a lot of young people won't vote. They might think she is better than Jeb/Ben/Donald/Carly etc., but will they turn off their XBox's long enough to vote?

    Will blacks vote for Bernie? I don't think so. They'll vote for him, but they won't get out the vote for him. IMO.

  • commodious spittoon||

    She's not stupid, she trusted in the complicity of her voters. What's the quote? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the cupidity of TEAM PARTY voters.

  • Ryan60657||

    Please spell her name correctly in future articles: HilLIARy

  • Citizen X||

    That's super clever. Can i quote you in my book?

  • tarran||

    Too late. Mike M. snapped up the exclusive rights.

  • Citizen X||

    Dammit! Block Yomomma® wasn't enough for that asshole?

  • F. Stand By Ion Control, Jr.||

    Mike M. snapped up the exclusive rights.

    You gotta admit, "Block Insane Yomomma" is at least more clever than "NOBAMA".

  • mfckr||

    Lul. The "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion for All" slogan almost sounds like the de-facto Reason motto, "Pot, Ass Sex, and Mexicans".

  • Zeb||

    Well, whoever that is has my vote.

  • Zeb||

    My dad (who was actually a Democrat) liked to call him "Borat Osama".

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Like Phlegm.

  • ||

    Does anyone else get the vague sense that Obama loathes the Clintons?

    There was that whole statement Hillary made about how generous she was to be willing to work for Obama after losing the primary to him, for one thing. And then there's the fact that we know that the Clintons are masters at collecting dirt on their enemies (opposition research). And then there's the fact that Hillary refused to use a work email address for her work when she worked for Obama. It's almost like she doesn't trust him not to collect dirt on her.
    (And then there's the fact that she apparently used her office to enrich herself via the Clinton Foundation by soliciting donations to it from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State.)

  • Drake||

    People who have had close contact with them, particularly Hillary, seem to fall into two categories. Sycophant toadies, and the rest who despise the Clintons.

  • TheseusTheGreek||

    Read an article along these exact lines. Claimed the FBI investigation would go away if Obama wanted it to.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    They may not like each other, but it doesn't do Obama any favors to conduct a thorough investigation on the current party front-runner for his job when she's got the backing of so many Dem power players. It makes it look like she blatantly went behind his back as SecState and undermines his prestige and authority with these people when they've stood by him loyally the past 8 years.

    Kerry's appointment of the Hillary donor as email czar, to me, shows that they're going through the motions so it doesn't look like the fix is completely in, but she'll never actually be charged with anything and Obama and Kerry will likely get some nice kickbacks from the Foundation as a result.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    If you have followed the sordid story of Clinton Inc. over the years, you would know their method operandi is to have dirt on their opponents, be they political or personal.
    If The Clintons are sweating inside, they certainly aren't showing it.
    Methinks they got good-n-juicy tidbits on our halfrafrcan queen.

  • Paul.||

    She's like Stalin. Her paranoias are multi-layered, because she knows what she's capable of, so she presumes everyone else is as well.

  • Michael Price||

    "It's almost like she doesn't trust him not to collect dirt on her."
    Gee I wonder why?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    as someone who works in a heavily regulated industry, I would advise against using "But we've always broken the law!" as a defense.



    "You can't touch us. We're grandfathered in."

  • GILMORE™||

    "The email story, in other words, has shown us how Clinton responds to the sort of basic questioning and scrutiny that she would receive every minute of every day as President of the United States—and that response is revealing, and damning, enough."

    Good point.

    Although I think there is in fact some legitimate basis to argue that her frequent, willful exchange of classified material between secure and insecure networks (and then subsequent attempt to cover up that activity) constituted offenses that can & should be prosecuted

    People have suggested that because she may not have "knowingly" done so, that she may avoid culpability. I have doubts. A second offense may have occurred when they decided to (attempt to) destroy records that were connected to the Benghazi inquiry.

    But I think your observation is true regardless of how any investigation proceeds. One of the most damning things about the story is how she has behaved as though no one deserves answers, and how dare anyone even question her.

  • Tituspullo||

    Not to mention the repeated lies about her friggin emails. If she made the same statements to the FBI, that's pretty clearly obstruction of justice.

  • ||

    People have suggested that because she may not have "knowingly" done so, that she may avoid culpability. I have doubts.

    When you're the motherfucking Secretary of State, you don't get to plead ignorance.

    What's next? Hillary as President: "Ooops I didn't realize that POTUS wasn't supposed to blow the covers of secret service agents. My bad."

  • GILMORE™||

    One of the prosecutors who went after Petraeus claimed Hillary's case isn't comparable for that reason

    (*its also noted said prosecutor has been a regular donor to Hill's campaigns)

    I personally think its a misleading comparison. The prosecutor also spends the entirety of their USA Today piece dwelling on the details of the Petraeus case, while mentioning *none* regarding Hillary's handling of classified material. There are many examples they could have noted which may have in fact demonstrated knowledge of mis-deeds - like stripping the headers off classified material.

  • R C Dean||

    Not "knowing" she wasn't using a .gov email server for government business and classified info? Because that's the underlying offense here.

    Of course she fucking knew she what she was doing.

    The prosecutor, I note, is referring to her "email retention practices", which is a nice way of avoiding the main issue. What a useless tool. And as far as email retention goes, one thing that Hillary did that Petraeus didn't, was try to destroy materials while they were actually under multiple subpeonas, including one from Congress.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    The request was for ALL emails, not just the ones Clinton feels like turning over.
    This is case-in-point about why you CANNOT use outside servers for your government work.
    Clinton is not hiding yoga moves or Chelsea-grams; she is hiding Clinton foundation cross-contamination of State Department policies, a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to friends and foes alike.

  • Kehvan||

    Case in point: Clinton’s decision earlier this year to turn over to the State Department a trove of work-related emails from the private email account she relied on exclusively during her time as Secretary of State.

    Please stop it... you are inadvertently helping Hillary obfuscate... Hillary didn't have a private account, but a private server.


    Now while the distinction might seem trivial, but it's not. A private account, is simply a personal email account with a service such as Yahoo, Hotmail, or Gmail, just to name a few. Services such as Gmail and the like shouldn't ever have classified data stored on their servers either, but at least they have entire teams of people looking for signs of hacking, and are ready to respond immediately. What Hillary did was build her own server and placed it in her house, and didn't have anyone really watching over it.


    Now one angle I've not seen anyone address, and frankly, it seems it's been ignored entirely, and that is someone set up the State Department servers to route emails from SIPRNet and other classified networks to this server, which means this should have been "air gapped" with any system connected to the internet, but it wasn't.


    She violated policies that put both Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning in hot water, and that's exactly where Hillary belongs.

  • ||

    Hillary soup sounds particularly unappealing.

  • Chip the Chipper||

    Holy crap the election is next fall.....

  • ThomasD||

    And it will only be with the greatest reluctance that Suderman decides, because her opponent is a crazy, insane extremist, he simply must endorse Hillary for President.

  • CharlieInCO||

    Actually, the content *is* an issue. At least some of the stuff was highly classified, exposiing her to prosecution on many counts of serious felonies.

  • QuadGunner||

    It was just announced... Hillary will be starring in season 4 of Orange is the New Black.

  • Jayburd||

    I'm starting a pool to see who can predict the date Sud actually calls Hillary a LIAR.

  • XM||

    Clinton is getting old, and the "millennials" were toddlers when Bill Clinton won his first election. The Clinton brand is fading fast.

    It is sort of tragic how her campaigns have fallen apart. Her allies abandoned her in droves when Obama burst into the scene, and now she can't fend off some old toad looking man from Vermont, which is like the whitest place in America.

    Any Republican nominee would HAMMER Sanders with attack ads with footages of riots in Greece and longs lines in Venezuela. "This is Bernie Sanders' vision for America"

    But Clinton can't do that, for obvious reasons.

  • David Friedman||

    What I find striking about the story isn't the possibility that there is something suspicious to be found, intriguing thought that is. It's the incompetence of wiping the server and not doing it right. One would think that people at the Clintons' level would have someone working for them competent enough to do a thorough job of erasing a hard drive.

  • jamesuiytr||

    She is currently under a lot of statutes. See: http://thefederalist.com/2015/.....formation/

  • jamesuiytr||

    Her list of offenses grows: http://thefederalist.com/2015/.....formation/

  • jamesuiytr||

  • jamesuiytr||

  • ||

    as Michelle explained I am startled that any body able to earn $8039 in four weeks on the internet . Check This Out ..............

    http://www.infopay50.cm

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online