Two Lies From The First Woman President’s Press Conference
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.
“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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:04 amTo 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:05 amWho 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:13 amaphrael, 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:32 amFace 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:34 amClinton deserves to be treated the same way she treats others: with disdain. Nothing more, nothing less.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:36 amIt’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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:37 amNixon had his missing 18.5 minutes… Hillary Clinton has her missing 4 years.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:38 amClinton is a grasping, voracious, power-hungry, ham-fisted shrew who lies as easily and naturally as she draws breath. #LikeABossy
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:42 amBTW. 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:46 amOnly two lies? To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word she says is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.
The literary Dana (f6a568) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:48 amJVW asked:
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:54 amat 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:59 amSetting up the “big reveal” press conference to happen at the UN in, and of itself was a big lie.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:01 amIt’s like forcing the country to climb down in a sewer tunnel with you to “clear the air”.
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:08 amIt 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:09 amIt’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
Nixon went to China.
Hillary! went to China, and announced human rights just weren’t a priority for her.
Steve57 (d8b290) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:10 amre #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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:10 amOdds of the justice system working on Mrs. Clinton 0%.
mg (31009b) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:12 amOdds of the justice system working on setting up some poor s.o.b. like me 100% of the time 24-7-365.
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:12 amre #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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:14 amIt didn’t take long: AP sues State Department, seeking access to Clinton records
The Dana who said that it would happen! (f6a568) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:16 amotoh 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:20 amI 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:25 amAm 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:39 amdaley@25
kishnevi (adea75) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:54 amMore 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.
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:09 amWhy shouldn’t she lie? When her husband lied his approval ratings actually went up in this stupid country.
CrustyB (69f730) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:13 amhonesty 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:22 amhappyfeet called a woman a hooch! Everybody freak out!!
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:29 amNonpartisan chivalry reigns here, sir!
It’s like the age old expression goes: “If you can’t say anything nice, ‘pickle’ shall suffice.”
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:31 amColonel 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:33 amthe sufficient pickle I love it
happyfeet (50f708) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:44 am32… time grows too short for pussyfootin’, aphrael. “Civilization” done run out of dinosaur juice.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:53 amI 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:57 amWhether 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:58 am> 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:04 amAphrael wrote:
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:08 amI 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:08 amDana – 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:10 amthat’s an arguable claim: after all, feets was referring to Shrillery.
😎
redc1c4 (cf3b04) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:12 ammind you they did hack her personal email, and put it on Gawker,
http://twitchy.com/2015/03/11/this-one-old-photo-of-sarah-palin-nails-the-ridiculousness-of-hillarys-two-devices-excuse/
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:20 amdon’t know if it fits in this thread:
http://andstillipersist.com/2015/03/hillarys-blackberry-why-it-makes-total-sense/
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:51 am@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) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:30 pmsquirrel!
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/11/6-huge-problems-with-hillarys-there-is-no-classified-material-dodge/
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:33 pmAphrael wrote:
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:38 pmAnd junior wins the internets for today!
The appreciative Dana (f6a568) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:40 pm“If you can’t say anything nice, ‘pickle’ shall suffice.”
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:31 am
Well done, Leviticus.
felipe (56556d) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:58 pmNot necessarily, junior, but one must ENSURE® that one does maintain one’s POISE® and DIGNITY®
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 1:32 pm49.
…that one does BOOST® one’s…
Hope you don’t mind a bit of amicable editing, Col.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 3/11/2015 @ 1:46 pmlol, not at all!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 1:52 pmPatterico, 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 4:49 pmoh jeez, I really having nothing left to ‘defend’ H.C. now.
seeRpea (181740) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:00 pm25. daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:39 am
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/
Compare:
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:
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:42 pm40. B is the answer. That’s not why she did what she did.
Sammy Finkelman (a551ff) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:44 pmthe hole is becoming a pit
seeRpea (b6bbec) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:15 pmhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561407
Hey, Sammy! Where you been?
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:32 pmthink Sammy had major hangover :/
seeRpea (b6bbec) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:39 pmWell 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:59 pmwhen 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:04 pmand 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:15 pmPolitifact 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:16 pmWe 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:16 pmOH, 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:21 pmwell 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:28 pmGood 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) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:43 pmHaiku, 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:
Then as soon as he could without suffering for it, he actually funded that policy.
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
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.
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) — 3/11/2015 @ 11:08 pmMr. 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) — 3/12/2015 @ 3:29 amI 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) — 3/12/2015 @ 3:46 amA vote for Lindsey Graham or Mike Huckabee is like McDonalds pandering exclusively to black people.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/12/2015 @ 6:26 amThey’re an answer to nobody’s question, just like the McRib sandwich.
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) — 3/12/2015 @ 6:46 am10. crazy (cde091) — 3/11/2015 @ 8:46 am
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/
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.
See also this now:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-private-email-plan-drew-concerns-early-on-1426117692
How do you like that?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/12/2015 @ 3:26 pmNeo (d1c681) — 3/11/2015 @ 9:16 pm
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/
So she was telling the truth. That was not the reason he was fired.
Sammy Finkelman (302bdd) — 3/13/2015 @ 1:42 pm