Just some random statements and comments on Hillary and servergate.
Now she gives an interview to Andrea Mitchel. In it she made a few whoppers. I’m not putting a link up, you can look it up.
She trotted out her old excuse that she didn’t want two different devices. You know, that was never the reason. No one can be stupid enopugh to believe this. Hasn’t this already been knocked down everywhere? Yet she brings it again.
Hillary said it wasn’t the best choice. Ya think? No, it was her deliberate choice. It was a schemed, premeditated choice. Did she admit as a woman making a wrong choice?
She said the server was approved by the State Dep. Really? Then again, she was the Secretary of State. Therefore is she basically saying she approved of it? If it was approved, and under the authority of the State Dep., then what was the purpose for setting it up in the first place? It was to circumvent. Did they approve of her circumventing or annexing their State system? When did State authorize that? Did State approve her lawyer’s copy?
Bryan Pagliano (former State employee) is the IT guy who maintained it and now is pleading the fifth. Cut the chase, he is likely the guy who did the deleting and scrubbed the server, per her orders. One can see a big reason he would not testify. Short of the server testifying, he is the next best thing. Did he make the thumb-drive copy for her attorney?
She uses the excuse that she was trying to simplify things when in reality she complicates everything. If it was part of and extension of the State, then why would she put her personal emails and information on it? Why would she want to include all her personal email and information as well on a government tied, State authorized system?
She explained that Bryan was tasked to keep their server and their personal information maintained, and personally employed by her and Bill. Was he also authorized and approved by State? Why would she want to entangle her personal information with the State? Does that make any sense? No one made her give up a personal email account or her own server system to use the State system. She could have had her own or multiple personal accounts outside the State. Read not tied to the State Department. Why tie her personal to State?
Records always were a problem with Hillary. Or Hillary’s records always were a problem. Obama and Axelrod went after her records. She was always hiding and obscuring her records. Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008 asked “what is she hiding?”
She is sorry that all this has been confusing to people. Really? By design; it was obviously not confusing enough, as she hoped, to have it lost in the smoke and mirrors. She is sorry people are confused! Ha ha.
The important point is no one forced her to give up a personal email account.
About Benghazi, she said she has been asking and hounding the investigations to testify to them. She was just looking for every opportunity to volunteer herself to help in the Benghazi case. They declined her offers all the time. Is that somewhere in writing? (probably one of the deleted emails)
The answers are obvious to anyone not smoking the ganja or guzzling the Kool Aid.
Weeks ago Mitchel started the pondering by asking the central question:
Andea Mitchel: no one can explain why she had a private server.
Not even Hillary, apparently. And the guy who maintained it isn’t talking.
A home-brew system with Hillary Clinton is toxic.
Update Also see Washington Post:
Asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday whether anyone in her inner circle ever expressed concern about the setup, Clinton responded, “I was not thinking a lot when I got in.”
“There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?”
RightRing | Bullright