Sunday, September 13, 2015 - Maybe She Used a Kleenex

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever.

There is a distinction between e-mails’ being deleted and a server being wiped. If e-mails are deleted or moved from a server, they appear to no longer exist on the device. But experts say, depending on the condition of the server, underlying data can remain on the device, and the e-mails can often be restored.

To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the ­Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen.
Presumably then, the bulk of the deleted "personal emails" will ultimately be available to the FBI. If, as I suspect, many of the "personal" emails consist of Hillary importuning foreign and domestic "friends" to contribute to the  Clinton Foundation Slush Fund with the thinly veiled promise of State Dept. favor, it will be instructive to see if the Obama administration handles it. If the FBI quickly starts leaking damaging material, it will signal that Obama has decided that Hillary is not the person to carry out his third and fourth terms.

However, it that regard, the Justice Dept. has said that Hillary was within her rights in deleting personal emails off the private server . . . Done and done: Justice Dept says Clinton could erase emails if she liked
The Justice Department is affirming that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had the right to delete personal emails from her private server.

Government lawyers made the assertion in a court filing this week in a public records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, an advocacy group. The legal filing says “there is no question” that Clinton could have deleted personal emails without agency supervision and could have done so even if she’d been using a government server.
. . .
The back-and-forth over the preservation order, as part of a narrow FOIA case, does not address the classification issues that still command sustained political coverage about Clinton.

But in terms of the email submission itself, the lawyers argue that, without reason to believe that Clinton was not honest and forthcoming in selecting and turning over her federal records, no government agency would be required to “recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted.” Such was the case with Clinton, the lawyers say.
Which is probably fair, until some deleted "personal" email shows evidence of a crime being committed. And since we all probably commit 3 felonies a day just by breathing, that shouldn't be hard to find if they peer into the darker corners.

When a liberal loses Dana Milbank: Milbank: Say, this Hillary 6.0 campaign really puts the “moron” in “oxymoron,” huh?
We knew Clinton was going to be funny and warm because her aides told the New York Times she was going to be funny and warm. “Hillary Clinton to Show More Humor and Heart, Aides Say,” was the headline on Amy Chozick’s piece week, reporting that “there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious.”

“They want to show her humor,” Chozick said of the advisers. “They want to show her heart.” They want this even though previous such efforts “backfired amid criticism that the efforts seemed overly poll tested.”

Maybe they seemed poll-tested because they were poll-tested, but no matter: “The coming months will also be a period of trying to shed her scriptedness.”

Planned spontaneity? A scripted attempt to go off script? This puts the “moron” into oxymoron.
Ellen Degeneres claims that Hillary is being held to a "different" standard:
When Ellen reluctantly asked about the emails, Clinton said, “Well, I want people to understand this, so I’m glad you asked. I used a personal email account. It was allowed by the State Department, but I should have used two different accounts. I made a mistake and I’m sorry for all the confusion that has ensued. I take responsibility for that, but I’m now trying to be as transparent as not just I can, but anybody ever has been. So 55,000 pages have been turned over to be released and we’ve got the server and then me testifying before Congress. I’m going to keep talking about it and answering questions.”
Using a private email account for all your official business may be "barely" within the law, but it was certainly not expected of a high level official, much of whose business (classified or not) would be of interest to prying spies. And we know that classified information was passed into and out of that private email. But even worse, the private email account was on a server operated first in the basement of her own house, and then in data center of a small, politically connected internet company. Chances of it being  read in real time by Russia, China, Israel, North Korea et al are extremely high.
DeGeneres added, “I don’t think you need to. It’s just that people keep bringing it up. They haven’t found a thing. They keep saying that they found something. I personally think that, women, I know you will not say this because you don’t think there should be a difference between women’s rights and human rights, and I love that you say that because it should be just human rights. But I will say that I personally believe that women are held to a different standard than men. We’re held to a different standard for our weight, our age, our looks, for everything. Which is not fair because you are the smartest, most qualified person for this job.”
Sure, because she is a member of the political elite, and a high member of the party in charge of the executive branch of the government, she is being held to a far lower standard than any military, intelligence, or Republican would be held to. Ask General Petraeus.

O'Keeffe Catches Clinton Campaign Breaking the Law

According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.”

The video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law. Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters.

The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law
This is all good fun. But what it really illustrates is that limits on campaigning other than simple vote buying is difficult. Only the most egregious violations will be violated, and the media will only pursue investigations of their political foes, which is why only Fox will give this video any air play, while we could count on ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and PBS and NPR to publicize similar activities on the Republican side.  If you're not going to enforce the laws, don't have them.

No comments:

Post a Comment