Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2015

Two Lies From The First Woman President’s Press Conference

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:39 am



Hillary said she just wanted to use one device:

[W]hen I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account–which was allowed by the state department– because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails, instead of two. Looking back, it would have been better if I had simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue. . . . I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Except she actually used two (clip is just 18 seconds long):

Hillary said the server “contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

Except that, shortly before the press conference, Bill Clinton revealed that he has sent only two emails in his life, both while he was president:

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

As president, Mr. Clinton’s first email was a message to John Glenn, the former senator and astronaut who in 1998 was making a return trip to space. Mr. Glenn wrote Mr. Clinton, and the president replied. “Hillary and I had a great time at the launch,” Mr. Clinton wrote in his note. “We are very proud of you and the entire crew, and a little jealous.”

Whoops, and whoops.

You gotta lie better than that, Ms. First Woman President.

P.S. Seriously: I cannot listen to that voice for four years.

73 Responses to “Two Lies From The First Woman President’s Press Conference”

  1. “In 2007, Mrs. Clinton, then a senator from New York and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the George W. Bush administration of using “secret White House email accounts” along with secret wiretaps and military tribunals.

    “You know, our Constitution is being shredded,” she said at the time.”

    NYT on 3/10/15

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  2. To be fair, it’s really not clear in the clip that she’s talking about what she used *while she was Secretary of State*. It seems to me she’s talking about *what she uses now*, and I think it’s reasonable to expect that her usage patterns have changed over time.

    aphrael (34edde)

  3. Who the heck is obligated to be fair to the Hildebeest? She’s never played square and fair with the rest of us–and what goes around comes around.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  4. aphrael, you do always try to be fair and almost always look for the good in people and attempt to see all sides of most issues. That is a quality that I and many others appreciate and admire about you. That said, Hillary is a horrible woman who over decades has shown she is a money hungry viper with no moral compass, and no scruples. The truth is a foreign concept to her both before, during, and after her time as Secretary of State. Attempts to justify her words or behavior will fall on deaf ears here. In that hastily called presser yesterday she had one chance to get it right and she made things worse. I pray she is on the way to removing herself from contention for the White House.

    elissa (e79aa2)

  5. Face it. She did it and it’s too late to stop her, but it’s not to late for democrats to wash their hands of her. Nixon stepped down when senate republicans told him they w(c)ouldn’t defend him anymore. The Obama administration will decide what legal jeopardy attaches to her actions and democrats will decide what political jeopardy she’s in. The rest of us can fan the flames all we want but it’s really up to them and always has been. The real pressure needs to be applied to them.

    crazy (cde091)

  6. Clinton deserves to be treated the same way she treats others: with disdain. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. It’s understandable to question whether Hillary’s admission of using multiple devices is only a post-Administration development, but it also leads to the natural follow-up question: how is it that using multiple devices was considered so cumbersome when she was Secretary of State but now seems to be second nature for her? Did she somehow turn into a technology whiz when she left Foggy Bottom?

    And yeah, this is a mean thing to say, but if it were possible to have a laugh transplant then I would think every single Hillary! advisor would be imploring her to get one. If I were in a debate with her I think my strategy would be to launch into a comedy routine and let the audience be sickened by her guttural cackle.

    JVW (854318)

  8. Nixon had his missing 18.5 minutes… Hillary Clinton has her missing 4 years.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. Clinton is a grasping, voracious, power-hungry, ham-fisted shrew who lies as easily and naturally as she draws breath. #LikeABossy

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. BTW. Why did she delete personal emails from a personal server and why did she keep official records she allegedly turned over to DOS on a what she says is a personal server? If you buy any of her explanation at all shouldn’t it be the other way around?

    crazy (cde091)

  11. Only two lies? To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word she says is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.

    The literary Dana (f6a568)

  12. JVW asked:

    how is it that using multiple devices was considered so cumbersome when she was Secretary of State but now seems to be second nature for her? Did she somehow turn into a technology whiz when she left Foggy Bottom?

    And when she had an entourage of government-paid lackeys, who could carry stuff around for her?

    I guess that she can’t be President, ’cause she surely can’t carry the football.

    The Dana who doesn't have personal aides (f6a568)

  13. at first i thought she was talking about present use but if more is heard it is quite possible she is also referring to her time as SecState.
    btw: If she is shown using a BlackBerry while SecState then she has no excuse.

    More: the quote mentioned in #01 really needs to be thrown back at her. Given what she voluntarily said about the WH private email setup , how could she think her email setup was ok? Lets see if any of the press or pundits ask that or how her office never dealt with classified material in emails.

    spread this photo around

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  14. Setting up the “big reveal” press conference to happen at the UN in, and of itself was a big lie.
    It’s like forcing the country to climb down in a sewer tunnel with you to “clear the air”.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  15. You gotta lie better than that, Ms. First Woman President.

    Unfortunately, and with respect Mr. P…No, she doesn’t. That’s much more better than good enough for the mfm, the 47%, and those who will once again vote to make history no matter the cost to the country.

    Matador (137497)

  16. It hit me! The server is for presidentclinton.com, so Mrs Clinton wanted her emails to have that address, nextdamnedpresident@presidentclinton.com!

    Or perhaps therightfulpresident@presidentclinton.com.

    The Dana who figured it out! (f6a568)

  17. 8. Nixon had his missing 18.5 minutes… Hillary Clinton has her missing 4 years.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:38 am

    It’s unfair to compare Hillary! and Nixon.

    Hillary! lacks Nixon’s warmth, charm, and basic sense of humanity.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/16/unearthed-audio-hillary-discussed-defending-child-rapist-n1852068

    …Clinton’s client ended up serving less than a year in prison on a heavily reduced charge. Here is the relevant audio from the decades-old interview. In my judgment, the most upsetting portion comes around (4:40), when Clinton laughs out loud while describing how her efforts helped prevent a “miscarriage of justice”…

    …It’s one thing to agree to take on an unsavory client and to fulfill one’s professional and ethical obligations. It’s another matter to have a strange retrospective chuckle about benefiting from a turn of events that let a child rapist off the hook. National Review’s Jim Geraghty also wonders how Hillary might respond to questions about her planned strategy to aggressively discredit a 12-year-old rape victim:

    If asked [about it], Hillary will presumably attempt to revert to “everyone is entitled to the best legal defense/legal ethics,” spin and try to keep it there, try to make it a boring story of two legal professors arguing abstract principles. The more interesting question will be whether anyone asks how she feels about attacking the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim — particularly when, as Hillary later said on the tapes, she believes her client committed the crime. This story could change the race if this blows up big enough. If Hillary says, “yes, I regret it,” she’s admitting to an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the feminists, the Left, and honestly, a lot of Americans. But if she says, “no, I didn’t do anything wrong, I did what every good lawyer would do” she looks callous and harsh and ruthless, confirming all of the old 1990s stereotypes.

    Nixon went to China.

    Hillary! went to China, and announced human rights just weren’t a priority for her.

    Steve57 (d8b290)

  18. re #14: well the presser had BBC for sure. those paragons of virtue and protector of women.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/bbc-whistleblowers-jimmy-savile

    but they did suspend Jeremy Clarkson.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  19. Odds of the justice system working on Mrs. Clinton 0%.
    Odds of the justice system working on setting up some poor s.o.b. like me 100% of the time 24-7-365.

    mg (31009b)

  20. Colonel Haiku, at 6: speaking just for myself, treating someone with disdain diminishes *me* and hurts *me*. So why would I choose to do it, or encourage my friends to do so?

    Elissa, at 4, thank you for the kind words.

    I think I made it clear in the other thread that I’m not with former Sen. Clinton on this *at all*. And at the same time, my criticisms and complaints about her behavior are going to be more convincing if I’m scrupulously fair to her – and in this case it’s possible to be *severely biased in her favor* and still think her behavior is unethical.

    aphrael (34edde)

  21. re #16: Yeah! for Dana :)
    makes sense, but too late now. unless when she wins they put the server in gov’t controlled offices.
    (though i no longer think she will. i don’t think the MSM will let her off the hook on this)

    [ jic you haven’t seen it yet, https://twitter.com/brianmcarey/status/575643132798332928/photo/1 ]

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  22. otoh Chris Hansen is out over on NBC looking for something to do.

    I’d love to see some ambush journalism aimed at Mrs. Clinton, and her online predations.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  23. I mentioned the multiple devices issue in the comments of the previous thread. I also noted that aphrael’s theory in post number 2 up above is what ABC is claiming. I’m skeptical of the claim, but we need to be aware of what the defense against this will be.

    junior (79e744)

  24. Am I to understand that in four years as SoS Hillary never sent an official email to a nongovernmental employee or to a nongovernmental employee without cc’ing a State Department employee in her lame attempt to abdicate records retention responsibility she explained yesterday?

    Sounds like that requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. daley@25
    More like permanent removal of disbelief.
    What piqued my interest was her claim that she was simply following a standard Insidethebeltway practice. If true that ramifies in interesting ways.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  26. Colonel Haiku, at 6: speaking just for myself, treating someone with disdain diminishes *me* and hurts *me*. So why would I choose to do it, or encourage my friends to do so?

    You’ve just explained the stance that the Clintons – and far-left Democrats in general – have depended on for decades now to further their agenda and expand the power of the State, aphrael. Thanks for the clarity.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. Why shouldn’t she lie? When her husband lied his approval ratings actually went up in this stupid country.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  28. honesty is the best policy but a lying hooch is a better policy than jeb bush who makes me sick to where I want to throw up

    happyfeet (50f708)

  29. happyfeet called a woman a hooch! Everybody freak out!!

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  30. Nonpartisan chivalry reigns here, sir!

    It’s like the age old expression goes: “If you can’t say anything nice, ‘pickle’ shall suffice.”

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  31. Colonel Haiku, at 27: I believe it’s possible to oppose someone’s agenda on the grounds that they are wrong, and to call them out when they are behaving poorly on the grounds that they’re behaving poorly, without belittling them and treating them with disdain.

    I think that civilization at the end of the day *depends* on our ability to do that.

    But your mileage clearly varies.

    aphrael (34edde)

  32. the sufficient pickle I love it

    happyfeet (50f708)

  33. 32… time grows too short for pussyfootin’, aphrael. “Civilization” done run out of dinosaur juice.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  34. I don’t know if a point by point rebuttal is helpful or beside the point.
    She did the typical lib projection thing there, accusing others of what she would do herself.

    She set up a system where no one had oversight of her communications. When found out, she demands she still has the right to be her own final oversight.

    We are either a nation of laws (and the principles behind the laws) or we aren’t.

    It is not an issue of opposing any policy issues or opinions of Sec. Clinton, it is an issue of opposing her dishonesty and her treating the public like idiots when she is caught.

    Aphrael, she expects you to believe she cannot read 2 different email accounts from one device. My 14 yo daughter does that on a relatively low grade iPad.

    But that even is a distraction and not the biggest problem, the bigger problem by far is that she controlled the server.

    Whether the fact that the state department played, “Well, you never asked us if Sec. Clinton had communications through a non .gov email account” is a bigger or smaller problem.

    If that game was played in a typical civil proceeding or criminal case, would it be seen as clever lawyering or would a presiding judge rip into the offending party for wasting the court’s time, etc.?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  35. Whether the fact that the state department played, “Well, you never asked us if Sec. Clinton had communications through a non .gov email account” is a bigger or smaller problem, I don’t know.

    sorry

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  36. > Aphrael, she expects you to believe she cannot read 2 different email accounts from one device. My 14 yo daughter does that on a relatively low grade iPad.

    Sure. Today this is trivial. I don’t know what the state of the tech was in 2009 but I suspect that (a) it wasn’t as easy then and (b) even if it was, the government used behind-the-curve tech where it was harder, and (c) the off-the-shelf tech wasn’t up to government security standards.

    I don’t think *that part* of her story is implausible.

    But:

    > that even is a distraction and not the biggest problem

    Absolutely. The server shouldn’t have been under her control, and if it *was*, she should have turned over its full contents to let someone else determine what was or wasn’t relevant. Hell, if she were trying to be above board, she would have had a read-only government email account that everything going in or out of her personal account was forwarded to.

    aphrael (34edde)

  37. Aphrael wrote:

    Hell, if she were trying to be above board,

    Might as well stop right there, because neither of the Clintons has tried to be above board since birth.

    When a woman tells you that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, whose claim to fame came afre Hillary Rodham was born, she’s telling you that she’s been dishonest since birth.

    But we already knew that.

    The hysterically amused Dana (f6a568)

  38. I think that civilization at the end of the day *depends* on our ability to do that.

    But your mileage clearly varies.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:33 am

    *Depends®* is the operative word here…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  39. Dana – maybe, but as an analytical proposition, I often find myself asking “what would I do if I had the goal of [x] but also want to meet some other rule or goal [y]”? and then compare behavior.

    In this case, it’s so clear to me that there are massively superior ways of achieving her purported goals while still complying with public transparency that I am forced to conclude that (a) she doesn’t care about public transparency, (b) she’s lying about her purported goals, or (c) both.

    aphrael (34edde)

  40. happyfeet called a woman a hooch!

    that’s an arguable claim: after all, feets was referring to Shrillery.

    😎

    redc1c4 (cf3b04)

  41. @39 *Depends®* is the operative word here…
    —————

    So what you’re saying is that it depends on what the meaning of the word depends is?

    😛

    junior (79e744)

  42. Aphrael wrote:

    In this case, it’s so clear to me that there are massively superior ways of achieving her purported goals while still complying with public transparency that I am forced to conclude that (a) she doesn’t care about public transparency, (b) she’s lying about her purported goals, or (c) both.

    I’ll take C for $1,000 Alex!

    Perhaps you might consider option D: she is a pathological liar. The Clintons — both of them — have gotten away with so many shenanigans (at the least!) for so long, and told so many lies in the process, getting away with virtually all of them, that the truth is simply something foreign to their makeup. They are very much the perfect couple!

    Thing is, they lie even when telling the truth wouldn’t really hurt them, lying won’t help them, and getting caught in the lie — and they know that people are looking for lies from them — will cause major problems, and that’s simply not rational behavior. Mrs Clinton’s response does not solve the problem or end the situation; it will not end until the server is turned over to the State Department, and if Mrs Clinton couldn’t figure that out herself, she has a whole pack of advisers, people who really aren’t stupid, and surely one of them managed to say to her, “Look, Hills, this ain’t gonna fly.”

    There is something really, really wrong with that woman.

    The psychologist Dana (f6a568)

  43. “If you can’t say anything nice, ‘pickle’ shall suffice.”
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:31 am

    Well done, Leviticus.

    felipe (56556d)

  44. Not necessarily, junior, but one must ENSURE® that one does maintain one’s POISE® and DIGNITY®

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  45. 49.
    …that one does BOOST® one’s…

    Hope you don’t mind a bit of amicable editing, Col.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  46. lol, not at all!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. Patterico, you’re assuming that Bill was telling the truth about only sending two emails. How dare you assume that she’s the one who was lying? They take turns!

    Andrew (e0ce05)

  48. oh jeez, I really having nothing left to ‘defend’ H.C. now.

    In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified “online adversaries.”

    seeRpea (181740)

  49. 25. daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:39 am

    25.Am I to understand that in four years as SoS Hillary never sent an official email to a nongovernmental employee or to a nongovernmental employee without cc’ing a State Department employee in her lame attempt to abdicate records retention responsibility she explained yesterday?

    That’s what she seemed to saying at one point – or rather actually she said she was complying with the Federal Records Act because the government had a copy, and there only has to be one copy and it doesn’t matter where it is.

    But at other points she said the State Department had a copy of the “vast majority” of her e-mails.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/

    Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department…

    ..I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them.

    Compare:

    Secondly, under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as reported information, regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.

    Which sounds like all of them, and not just the “vast majority.”

    Oh – and she sort of quietly let slip how she fooled the White House:

    Now, there are different rules governing the White House than there are governing the rest of the executive branch, and in order to address the requirements I was under, I did exactly what I have said. I emailed two people, and I not only knew, I expected that then to be captured in the State Department or any other government agency that I was emailing to at a .gov account.

    What’s buried in all this gobbledegook and lies is that when e-mailed people at the White House, she did something different. Her explanation as to why she did so doesn’t make any sense at all. What rules are different? For whom?

    Anyway, what she did in the case of e-mail to whitehouse.gov was copy e-mail to some other address in the State Department which they would have assumed was hers

    And this was was she was supposed to be doing with any e-mail sent from hdr??@clintonemail.com after about October, 2009, but she did it only with email sent to the White House.

    Sammy Finkelman (a551ff)

  50. 40. B is the answer. That’s not why she did what she did.

    Sammy Finkelman (a551ff)

  51. the hole is becoming a pit
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561407

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, like all departing federal employees, was required to fill out and sign a separation statement affirming that she had turned over all classified and other government documents, including all emails dealing with official business

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  52. Hey, Sammy! Where you been?

    nk (dbc370)

  53. think Sammy had major hangover :/

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  54. speaking just for myself, treating someone with disdain diminishes *me* and hurts *me*. So why would I choose to do it, or encourage my friends to do so?

    Well said, Aphrael. A lot of folks would do well to think about that.

    I’m sure all intellectually honest people realize why a politician would want this level of control over her emails. Clinton has a lengthy experience with disclosure issues, stemming from her work for the Committee on the Judiciary dealing with Nixon’s mistakes, but also all the way through the Clinton presidency and her work as Senator and Secretary of State. She’s condemned others for using private email for official business.

    As you say, it’s evident Hillary has no appreciation for the public’s right to know what she did on their behalf. And even that is besides the point. She was a very senior official as a Cabinet member in the line of presidential succession. It was her responsibility to keep her emails in an appropriate location, not her home.

    But what I find interesting is the way the public responds. I am concerned that a whole lot of voters just don’t care. There have always been people like Hillary trying to get more power, and it’s a symptom of society if they are able to succeed after their integrity is trashed so publicly.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  55. when has she ever been ‘above board’ from the health care task force on, her career in government has been characterized by obfuscation, and deceit from word one, she was only ‘beaten’ by a more mendacious champion of said skills,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  56. and lets not forget the Rose Firm paperwork that mysteriously showed up,
    the 5k to 100k on cattle futures in less than a week,
    whitewater ,
    travel office firings,
    lying about Lewinski ,
    fudging charity deductions on tax returns,
    (what else am i missing from the ’90s ?)

    The point is , this is not new for her to do. there is no reason to give her benefits of the doubt about her thoughts, methods and motives.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  57. Politifact claims that the private email use alone didn’t sink the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration in 2012.

    While using a private email account was a factor, it seems that the main reason Gration was forced out was because President Obama had appointed a complete incompetent to be U.S. ambassador to Kenya.

    “The ambassador is completely incompetent and should be removed as quickly as possible before he does any more damage to American interests.”

    While the exact reasons were not obvious at first blush, Ambassador Gration and Secretary Clinton had much in common.

    Neo (d1c681)

  58. We could say much of the same about Boehner, Narciso. If only two wrongs really did make a right, we would have such a righteous capitol.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  59. OH, and I think the timing of this is to Hillary’s advantage. It’s a little too late for any of her competitors to get the ball rolling, and far enough away that they can play the ‘it’s an old scandal so we’re done talking about it’ thing in 19 months. And the right is talking about this instead of amnesty and the Iran issue. Not that they could do anything about either anyway.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  60. well the Iran thing is more interesting, Judge Hanen’s holding his own, on amnesty, because the Cliquw can’t be bothered,

    I was pointing out how Hillary is credited with judgement, wisdom, sight unseen, when the reverse has always been true.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  61. Good Lord… equating John Boehner with the likes of Hillary Clinton. Boehner may be a back room player and not to everyone’s liking, but he doesn’t ooze evil, a sense of entitlement and a malevolent disdain for his countrymen like Hillary Rodham Clinton does. But then, I pride myself on an ability to discern basic decency from its opposite.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  62. Haiku, you’re right that Boehner and Hillary are not equal, and I did not say they are. Boehner is worse.

    Boehner, the chief guardian of the House’s role in our government, said:

    The House will soon take action aimed at stopping the president’s unilateral action when it comes to immigration. Republicans are in agreement that this is a gravely serious matter. The President’s unilateral actions were an affront to the rule of law and our system of government. The American people don’t support it, and as their representatives, cannot let it stand. I said we’d fight it tooth and nail when we had new majorities in the House and Senate, and I meant it.

    Then as soon as he could without suffering for it, he actually funded that policy.

    The 1,603-page omnibus spending bill that Boehner pushed through a lame-duck Republican-controlled House last month put no prohibition on Obama using government funds to implement the amnesty. That omnibus funded almost all the government through the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30 and the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27.

    He fought for that which he said was an affront to the rule of law, and something he promised to fight against, “tooth and nail.” Amnesty is of major consequence to millions of people. I do not know where you stand on Amnesty. Mitt flipped on it, so perhaps you’ve also had a change of heart. That doesn’t matter. Boehner broke his word over a matter he knows is serious. He did so quickly and shamelessly.

    Hillary’s behavior with her emails is quite wrong for the same fundamental reason (that it’s dishonest). That’s my pet peeve, as you know. But I question whether Hillary was making real decisions as Secretary of State, rather than just serving as a pawn of the administration so she would have a credential for her future candidacy. The fruits of Boehner’s actions were, by his own words, grave and serious.

    That you don’t understand this is borne of partisanship

    he doesn’t ooze evil, a sense of entitlement and a malevolent disdain for his countrymen

    Your tone is identical to the most angry partisans on democratic underground. Those folks seem so unhappy. They, like you, are preaching angrily to the choir while making a show of their more passionate cheerleading. I’m not trying to insult you, but I think this is pathetic behavior. And like you, they are upset at folks like me who criticize ‘my own side’. To me it makes sense to be more concerned with those I wanted something from, than those I never agreed with.

    Why are you even worried about what I say? There are threads on this blog where you are quoting me and arguing against me, and I’ve never actually commented in that thread. You’re importing comments from other blogs! Your anger at me to your being condemned for lying about leaving those extremely nasty and bigoted comments a couple of years ago.


    It’s already been revealed that Haiku was the one who made that comment. Then lied about it.

    So I smirk that you, Haiku, a dishonest, small, bigoted troll, are lecturing me on the evaluation of integrity (or anything else), because I am insufficiently partisan. That thread is particularly appropriate as your waffling and lying and hemming about what you said is exactly like Hillary’s. You even have used Hillary’s favorite ‘that’s old news’ excuse. It’s pretty funny, actually.

    I would vote FOR Hillary over Lindsey Graham or Mike Huckabee. Chew on that for partisanship. Yes, Patterico’s video clip has caught Hillary red handed in a lie. It is serious. But why? Not because Hillary is a democrat, but because lying is wrong no matter what party she is in.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  63. Mr. Colonel is a good commenter person he adds value unlike John Boehner who oozes evil and a sense of entitlement and a malevolent disdain for his countrymen

    america needs a wetnap cause of all the ooze

    happyfeet (831175)

  64. I too would vote FOR Hillary over Lindsey Graham or Mike Huckabee.

    gack

    or that Jeb person

    he’s bad news

    Marco Sleazio I’d probably just not bestir myself either way

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. A vote for Lindsey Graham or Mike Huckabee is like McDonalds pandering exclusively to black people.
    They’re an answer to nobody’s question, just like the McRib sandwich.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  66. This is what happens when you cater to liberal shiboleth.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/07/22/the-golden-arches-lose-their-shine-mcdonalds-profit-falls-as-u-s-sales-struggle/

    Tofu burger and soy milk on the new dollar menu aren’t the big draw they thought it would be.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  67. 10. crazy (cde091) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:46 am

    BTW. Why did she delete personal emails from a personal server and why did she keep official records she allegedly turned over to DOS on a what she says is a personal server? If you buy any of her explanation at all shouldn’t it be the other way around?

    Not if you were concerned about what e-mails could be read in the event the server was seized with a search warrant.

    There was no problem with the emails she had already turned over. It wa sthe remaining ones she had to keep private.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/

    At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

    No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.

    Now I think there are no circumstances, other than an investigation or a lawsuit in which the server is seized and all the emails become evidence, under which information about Chelsea’s wedding or her mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations would become public.

    This sort of thing did happen to Monica Lewinsky when her computer was seized.

    Now of course, everything not turned oover was labeled personal.

    In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear.

    See also this now:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-private-email-plan-drew-concerns-early-on-1426117692

    Mrs. Clinton said she followed the rules because most of her email was sent to recipients with government accounts, which was automatically retained. Her office said about 10% of her emails weren’t captured that way, and were therefore unavailable until late last year.

    In deciding what to turn over, her office says she directed her attorneys to collect all official messages. They identified 30,490 such emails, including one to a foreign official (from the U.K.). They concluded the remaining 31,830 emails were personal, and Mrs. Clinton said they were deleted.

    How do you like that?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  68. Neo (d1c681) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:16 pm

    it seems that the main reason Gration was forced out was because President Obama had appointed a complete incompetent to be U.S. ambassador to Kenya.

    So that’s what Hillary Clinton didn’t want to say:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/

    QUESTION: … who was forced to resign two years ago because of his personal use of emails?

    By the way, David Shuster from Al Jazeera America.

    CLINTON: Yeah. Right…

    QUESTION: What about Ambassador Scott (inaudible) being forced to resign?

    CLINTON: David, I think you should go online and read the entire I.G. report. That is not an accurate representation of what happened.

    So she was telling the truth. That was not the reason he was fired.

    Sammy Finkelman (302bdd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3382 secs.