Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Hillary does NAACP

Out in front of the Republican Convention, and pandering as usual, Hillary gave a speech to NAACP. (I wonder if she charged them 250K?)

She lectured on the rule of law and accountability. Her hypocrisy really has no bounds.

So is the message or the messenger the problem?

And as president, I will bring the full weight of the law to bear and making sure those who kill police officers are brought to justice. There can be no justification, no looking the other way.

That’s why our laws treat the murderers of police so seriously, because they represent the rule of law itself. If you take aim at that and at them, you take aim at all of us.

We must reform our criminal justice system because everyone is safer when there is respect for the law and when everyone is respected by the law.

I don’t think anyone anywhere needs to connect what is wrong with messenger Hillary Clinton lecturing us on the rule of law and accountability, saying she stands up for the rule of law — while she trounces it every chance she gets. And lying is no problem either.

Ignorance is an excuse

I’m sorry, ignorance is an acceptable defense, at least if you are Hillary Clinton.

Saved by intent. Lack of criminal intent says no criminal charges should be filed.

FBI Director Comey testifies about it’s investigation and his determination not to prosecute Hillary. Or as Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” In this case, it is the Director of the FBI standing in the gap, as both a servant of the people and a career.

You normally cannot find what you aren’t looking for, or don’t want to find.

Only in the land of the government oversight hearing would Democrats use the number and quality of all the hacking to government server systems as a defense for what Hillary did. Make that clear, the numerous government hacking mitigates Hillary’s private server arrangement — so she looks better than government by comparison. (I knew they could find a way to use all those hacks for some political purpose.)

Isn’t it interesting that the determining process here was “intent” because he had already — at some point — ruled out the negligence factor? Then, by design, he did not meet the bar of intent. Well, if he really looked very closely for intent. And as most of us know, we normally do not find what we aren’t look for or don’t want to find.

It is funny too that a body who does not want to see intent, even if it is 5 feet in from of their face, can see intent all over the place within the politics of the hearing.

Director Comey goes round and round saying there was no evidence astablished of intent, but then they really weren’t looking too hard for any, if at all.

Now we know if you are commit an offense or break the law of conduct in government, it is only prosecutable if they knew they were doing it or violating it.

At numerous times he appeared to contradict himself while navigating the circumstance of the investigation.

So you have here a Sec of State that is going around telling others not to use any private email for work related conduct, while she herself has set up her own rogue server in her house to use for all her communications. But that, when investigated, she is absolved of having any intent.

How can you scold others about following security rules and ignore them yourself, without intent? That’s right, intentionally ignore them yourself, for all your communications and not even set up a government account.

Gross negligence is not grounds to prosecute, but it is an acceptable defense of criminal conduct. But the greatest asset for the Left is to apply the Alinsky rules to the process to defend yourself. And when it doubt, play dumb, whether you commit the act, or whether you are investigating it.

As Comey put it, he has worked hard to “stop the criminalization of negligence.” Then he himself fell back on ignorance of not knowing certain details about the case, including motive. However, by defaolt, he implied there was no intent by saying he found no prosecutable intent — whether he was really looking or not. He didn’t find it.

I did not, in any way, coordinate that. Brings back some fond memories.

RightRing | Bullright

United States of Divert, Deny and Lie

It’s mourning again in America, and Hillary has avoided one more obstacle in her grand anointing process. Welcome to the Department of Injustice.

Comey punted and claimed “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. Ouch, take that America. Those laws and justice that you value are not even a speed bump to the privileged elite ruling-class who operate above the law. (actually, it is beneath the law but who is arguing.) Cleanup in isle two!

Two people are now relieved, Hillary and Loretta Lynch. Well, Bill Clinton is three.

I thought “extremely careless” was being negligent.

While all the attention now shifts to the bombshell that FBI director is recommending no charges be filed, it diverts the emphasis off of the whole ordeal. It seems Comey was talking about a narrow statute dealing with classified information, but that was not the genesis of the scandal.

Long before the classified was sent or received, she set up an email system to obfuscate accountability and divert from archives and the FOIA system. If that is not willful intent going to all that trouble to set this up, I don’t know what is. So they gave immunity to the techie, then, for what?

It was not just a matter of some classified emails, which she lied about. It is the whole thing from the time she entered office to the time she left. But nothing is chargeable. It seemed all they wanted to look at in their FBI investigation was the classified emails. And how else would she correspond with Syd Blumenthal, out of the loop of State, if not on that server?

So, Hillary got her way when she claimed this was a security review. In effect, that is what it became. But there is a good article on the miscarriage of justice issue this is in Reason Magazine by Judge Andrew Napolitano. What about the Inspector General’s report that was just released?

Inspector General’s Report Refutes All of Hillary Clinton’s Defenses For Using Private Email Server

The Democratic frontrunner is painted as stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable in IG’s report.

Andrew Napolitano | June 2, 2016 | Reason.com

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a year-long investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department IT folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-email-defenses-refuted

Well, America, if you were not disgusted before, then this was another thumb in the eye to remind you how repulsive this whole process has been. Hillary operated for four years on an island of her own creation Then, when questioned, she lied, lied, lied. And that is beside what she did in Benghazi which is what set off all the red flares . She set the stage to get four Americans killed, and abandoned them both before and after their slaughter.

Comey covered his ass and preserved his job under a possible Hillary presidency. To say politics, and who the Clintons are, had nothing to do with it is ludicrous. This whole thing was loaded with politics. It would take Loretta Lynch bucking that recommendation to bring charges. Then it would be her own decision to do that, which she won’t do. To borrow a Bill Clinton phrase, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

The very day after we celebrated the 240th 4th of July, James Comey came out to deliver the recommendation of no charges. Loretta Lynch had been caught a week before in a private meeting with Bill Clinton. Now, as Comey spoke Obama amd Hillary were preparing to board AF-1 for a campaign rally in North Carolina for Hillary.

What a photo op, while she is escaping a major leg of suspicion about her future, she is hitting the trail with the President, as his Director in the Justice department is basically unindicting her. That beats a corsage While Comey claimed politics or influences have nothing to do with it, clearly they were on full display.

Then arriving in NC, with the President campaigning at her side, Hillary comes on stage with her “this is my fight song” music playing. That is an insult to the legacy of Benghazi. She’s been fighting against the damning Benghazi facts since the attack, amid another campaign for Obama’s reelection. From one political campaign to another — all politics.

This is my fight song
Take back my life song
Prove I’m alright song
My power’s turned on
Starting right now I’ll be strong
I’ll play my fight song
And I don’t really care if nobody else believes
‘Cause I’ve still got a lot of fight left in me
— Rachel Platten, “Fight Song”

They never mentioned escaping the FBI intent to prosecute. Though she did refer to Obama’s birth certificate aimed at Trump. Was she comparing the two?

Her first words were, “I feel very privileged” to be with Obama, a friend she stood with, talking about their “memorable experiences” she and Obama had together, joking and mocking Trump. Well, Benghazi might be a memorable one too, if it weren’t for all their denial from the beginning. Strange irony that Hillary says Trump is unqualified and temperamentally unfit for the office. She is the heiress of unqualified.

Finally, Obama lectured, “when a crisis hits” what do you do he asks? “You got to make the tough calls,” he said. So when a crisis hits they lie, lie and lie some more. Then divert, deny, distract and obstruct the truth finding… that’s what they do. He’s ready to pass the baton to Hillary. Well, that is after our government collectively passed the opportunity to hold Hillary or Obama accountable for their boatload of scandals.

But these are strange days when a tweet is more important than a national security, felony scandal. And what Trump says about it is more important than what Hillary did.

RightRing | Bullright

Realated: It takes a village to elect a crook

Hillary server questions redux

Referring to the use of the server and the email problems, Hillary said:

“And so, at the end of the day, I think it was kind of a wash.” She said in a Quad-City Times interview about servergate.

Yeah, I get it. She thinks that whole server-email thing was a wash. Quite the wash.
What a choice of words.

[starting @ 11:00 min in]

Hey look, it’s a mistake when I say it’s a mistake, as long as I say it’s a mistake, until I say it’s not. Get it? She regrets that this has caused such a diversion. Gee, “a diversion, a wash?”

So she was wrong about the Iraq war, she says, and that she has been more transparent and more forthcoming than anyone in office. She said her predecessors used the same approach. (except no they didn’t) “That was the process in place at the time,” she said. “I inherited that process.”

Maybe Benghazi was a wash too… or just needed one?
Maybe the process was to lie?

At what point will this tape self-destruct?

Source: http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-private-email-was-a-mistake-but-only-because-of-the-reaction/

Hillary: Breaking the law

Finally someone does an astute comparison of the Hillary Clinton email ordeal to General Petraeus and gives it more than passing reference. Ken Cuccunelli, former AG of Virginia, writes the stunning piece detailing the breach of conduct, in what I call egregious offenses to break the law.

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law

By Ken Cuccinelli | September 27, 2015 | Op-ed NY Post

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

[excerpt]

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

Read at: http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

The big question, once this is established by the very investigation she is taunting, is would the justice department prosecute? What grounds would they use to ignore or refuse to? She could need a pardon, which by accepting it requires the basic admission that one did something wrong. No wonder Bill is out characterizing it as a little nothing.

Bill bailing out Hillary

Bill Clinton on Hillary email/server scandal: this always happens. So this is just fodder about nothing. They’ve been victims since ’91. Poor old Clintons, so used and abused.

Hey Bill. this whole victim story thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen. After all the money he took in while Hillary was Secretary of State, he has nerve to say that. Even her Senate campaign was rife with scandal. That’s just how they roll.

Morning Joe grief counseling on Hillary

Morning Joe dumps on reacts to Hillary’s server mess.

Mika says, if she wins the nomination “I’d vote for her.” But then how do you get there?

Mika sounds warnings about “candidates pretending that things don’t exist.” Welcome to Hillary’s world. Then came the sobering proverbial question of the decade: “I’m going to believe you…and you think the American public is that stupid? That’s very insulting.”

Yes, apparently they do if people say they would still vote for her anyway.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager issued a memo August 13th, wherein he said Republicans are mired in a “bizarre and contentious primary”. So it’s the Republicans, stupid! I don’t see any of them mired in scandals, pretending they don’t exist.

Even lamestream media acknowledges the problems and lies contradictions. Strategy: Deny and ignore that Hillary’s problems even exist.

The most irritating two words

Democrats use so much language that really offends me, but there are two words that stand out as probably the most irritating.

Every time you hear the Democrats cry about needing this legislation, regulation or that bureaucracy those same two words rear their ugly head almost every time.

The words are Common Sense:–“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

One of the biggest culprits of this egregious offense is Hillary. She loves those words and works the phrase into almost any issue. The more unpleasant the issue or their ideas are, the more they use the words common sense to cover their butts and detract from their ideas. If the ideas aren’t popular, then throw out the word common sense a lot. Ask a Democrat their position on a very difficult and controversial issue and you are sooner or later likely to get the standard “I support a common sense approach.” Does it tell you anything? Does it define their position? Well, I suppose it defines the fact that they want to be sneaky and slippery about the issue. It sounds so good.

And that is exactly the problem, it sounds good to way too many people. First, the idea that these people are actually guided by common sense is ludicrous. I mean if there were a competition for lies that would be in the top 10. Or then the idea that whatever approach they do take must be therefore based on common sense because they told you they support a common sense approach. It’s crazy. Second, they are filler words; or it’s more like an empty vessel into which they can pour anything they want under that label. Want to buy affordable healthcare anyone? That’s the kind of plan those words are cover for.

The latest case in point is Hillary using them in her response about gun control. She said:

“It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks would fail in Congress despite overwhelming bipartisan support. It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense, and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.”

“The president is right — the politics on this issue have been poison. But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear, and I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”

All that sense from someone who obfuscates and hides the truth about Benghazi, a person who short circuited the State department by having her private email server. Someone who ran around blaming a video no one had seen for an attack, and telling the victims family they would get the guy who made it.

A person who scolded Congress “what difference at this point does it make” in response to questions on the Benghazi terrorist attack. This professor of “common sense” is lecturing everyone on what “makes no sense”, after scrubbing her private server clean after email requests on Benghazi – where an ambassador and 3 Americans were killed under her authority, while setting up an outpost under her orders.
“Once again racist rhetoric has metastasized into racist violence,” then she dove into race issues of the Charleston shootings. “America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”

For a little background from Dan O’Donnell at 1130 -WISN:

Even as her husband’s term in office was ending, Hillary was still trying to profit from it. She had furniture from the White House shipped to her personal home in Chappaqua, New York. She said they were donated, but when the manufacturers were contacted, it became clear that they were donated to the White House, not the Clintons, and meant to stay there. — Read more

But remember at that time the real story Hillary claimed news should be covering was the vast right-wing conspiracy, which was after her and her husband for all their escapades. This is probably the phoniest woman on the planet, lecturing on moral high ground.

At Texas Southern University earlier in June, Hillary said.

“Now, all of these reforms, from expanded early voting to modernized registration, are common sense ways to strengthen our democracy. But I’ll be candid here, none of them will come easily.”

But apparently real common sense does not come easily or frequently to Hillary Clinton.

Lecturing about law enforcement’s need to use cameras for “transparency“ she said,

“It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more than remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented by cameras but this is a common sense step we should take.”

So it’s “common sense,” we need cameras on Hillary Clinton to provide transparency.

The writing on the wall for Hillary

The writing is all over the wall for Hillary running then being the next presumptive president, and has been for a long time.

But the fact that some people don’t like or want to read that writing is a problem that needs to be nipped in the buttocks.

Hillary surrogate Granholm on potential challenger O’Malley: ‘He better watch out’

By Dan Calabrese March 30, 2015 | Canada Free Press

I sort of hate to horn in and do this on a day when Rob and his lovely wife are galavanting around on Rahm’s mean streets. Ripping on Jennifer Granholm is sort of his territory, and no one does it better. But I did say I’d cover for him, and one never knows what duty will require of us.

So when the most inept governor in Michigan’s long and not-so-storied political history pokes her head out of the ground and speaks on behalf of Hillary Clinton, there are several reasons you need to know about it. One is simply so you understand the judgment Hillary shows in empowering certain people to speak for her. Hey. I had to live through the infamous “lost decade” Granholm gave us too. The highest unemployment in the nation. Our biggest industry begging Congress for a bailout. Perennial budget crises. People fleeing the state in droves (a trend that has now reversed under Republican Rick Snyder).

Those of us who hung in there are glad we did, because Michigan is our home. But dang, when Jennifer Granholm was governor, this place was an abject disaster. In fact, it was so bad that once she was no longer governor, even she left.

So when you see this clip, keep in mind the type of person Hillary Clinton is comfortable having serve as her surrogate on national television – a complete, blithering, incompetent fool. But even more so, pay attention to what she says in this ignominious 16 seconds of foolishness:

Read more http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70822

I know he really hates to but one does what one can.

Let me guess that the Clinton machine will also show that their opposition research team can work just as good on any fellow Democrat as it does on Republicans. Martin O’Malley better find and get in his spot on the Hillary plantation, and do so quickly.

When he recieves that email from Hillary’s private server, then he’ll know for sure he better not be stepping up or out of line. It’s lonely out there, why a person might even get hurt out there. After the first one or two renegades get knocked back in line, there won’t be any other person stupid enough to jump off the Hillary bandwagon.

She doesn’t care if you call the presidency a family heirloom or a dynasty — it makes no difference to her — as long as you call it Hillary’s.

Doesn’t O’Malley get it? There will only be a primary if Hillary says there will be one. What part of that does he not understand? Is it the accent that he’s having trouble with? Hillary wrote the book “Hard Choices” specifically so there would be none. He’d better get with the program.

So if Hillary decides they’ll be no primary, there will be no primary. That’s what Hard Choices is all about. Some people are just thick.

Let the show…go on

Attention, now for our next performance under the Big Top:

Drum roll, please.

Hillary Clinton will now attempt to run on her record by running from her records!

Please remain quiet as she performs this career-defying feat.

Folks,  whatever happens may require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Enjoy the show!

Note: Kids, DO NOT try this at home! Hillary is a skilled professional.

Hillary’s fun tour preempts her listening tour

Call it a scheduling change. Hillary, well known for her listening tours, now recommends therapeutic fun for what ails you. The irony of the humor-challenged Clinton discovering the need for fun, now that’s funny! According to Hillary, we need a break.

Eureka, she’s discovered the mother load fun deficit. And she has the cure.

Hillary seems to be on a roll. Never a ‘dull‘ moment for someone trying to shake the baggage of her ‘really old‘ narrative. So she schemed up a diversion an idea ripe for today, she wants to start a fun camp. (and we thought she was already a laughing stock)

Apparently she’s given this some thought. Well, what passes for thought from Hillary.

Let the fun begin. She wants her peeps to be happy campers. And what a spokesperson for the cause, eh?

She stumbled upon a central problem with Dems: when their politics suck and they are losing ground, they are the most unhappy crowd you’ve ever seen. Now she plans on rectifying all that. The question is can she escalate it into bread and circuses?

But at least her idea has supplied lots of fodder for the right, and they are getting some laughs out of it. I doubt very much the Elizabeth Warren crowd is very amused though.

Instead of that fun deficit, how about we fix the truth deficit? Start by releasing the server and Benghazi emails that apparently, to Hillary, were not ready for prime time disclosure. Or were they too funny for prime time? Then she can do her “dirty dancing” tour.

Now maybe I can petition that Blue Toy company to come up with a “Hostess Hillary” fun doll version to fit in the Clinton collection? So now she wants to be the Comic-in-Chief.

So this is a new idea. But she did look like she was having a little too much fun on State Dept’s dole already, now we know why. Are these separate cabins going to have separate servers? Will all records be “private”? Maybe Biden and Bubba can be the welcoming committee? Rumor is when Hillary said “camp for adults” Bill Clinton’s eyes lit up.

Hillary, we have a problem: multiple problems

So Hillary says she “opted” to use just one device. Well, that sounds simple enough. Too simple. The problem is this is not about her choice of device, or number of them, she used but about the one private server she used exclusively. It’s about the choice of using one private account, for business and personal. She could have opted for any number of devices which still would all have been connected to the one private server. The multiple device excuse disintegrates under any logic.Could she make that case in court?

As many others said, she could have had more than one email account on one device. No, again, she wanted only one private server. That is the issue not the number of phones.

Now she complains but much of the info on there was private, and that is a problem. (but only for us) She is the one who gave it thought and then tossed all rational reason in the wind to combine her private emails with her public duties/responsibilities. (something she might have considered were she elected president) It was her decision, no one forced her. One can only imagine the size and scope of the server should she ever become president. But now she wants to make an issue about the amount of private stuff on there? Can anyone say smokescreen? A problem she willfully created.

Newest reports say her two top aides also used the server. Well, now we are getting closer. When Hillary talks about personal emails, or private information, it depends on the meaning of “private,” doesn’t it? If top aides were in her server loop then that info was not recorded at the State Department, obviously. Gives new meaning to private doesn’t it? Can the bsusiness or information related to the State Department be considered “private”? And she wonders why anyone would care about this.

But the whole point that this is a choice over having two or multiple devices is ludicrous. It’s like a blue dress someone airbrushed red. The more adamant she appeared in making that case at her presser, the more it destroys her credibility — which she had none of before.

Dems do even worse in defending her — note they defend Hillary not what she did. They say it will not make a difference to people on voting for her. Again, that is not the issue. Sure it should matter, but what she did and why are still the central issue. So politics, electability are the only things that matter. Following rules in office are irrelevant.

Her number-of-devices argument is as weak as the number of straw men she used.
But unfortunately for us, we don’t have an app for that.

Hillary settles emailgate

What problem?

I opted for convenience… it didn’t seem like an issue. Only after I left, they asked and I provided my emails.

We went through and delivered them. You don’t want to see my Yoga routines, trust me.

I don’t know why all the fuss?
I told the State Depart to make public whatever I(we) gave them.

I met all my responsibilities. I complied with all the rules.

 

Now as far as needing to see the server, I have no problem with that….

Here it is:

[public domain – wiki commons]

So now you’ve seen it! Humph!

There is one set of rules for you all, and another set for me. What’s wrong with that?

Signed,
ReadyForHillary@mars.com