Serving Up More Clinton.com Schadenfreude

Before we wander off into the server stuff, just a reminder that Clinton.com is really a giant scheme for transferring money to the Clinton's personal use:

Clinton Foundation Donors Sold ‘Green’ Fuel to Military for $149 per Gallon

The CEO and Board of Directors of Solazyme, a company the military paid $149 per gallon for “alternative” fuel, have donated more than $300,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, according to aWashington Free Beacon analysis.

Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algal oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,500 in 2009. The group also received a $21 million stimulus grant from Department of Energy in 2009.

Such a deal! Clinton's get free money to play with, and you get the bill.

And now, back to the Hillary Clinton State Department email scandal. Intelligence community wants Clinton’s security clearance suspended

Security experts say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton retained her government security clearance when she left the State Department, as is normal practice, it should be suspended now that it is known her unprotected private email server contained top secret material.

“Standard procedure is that when there is evidence of a security breach, the clearance of the individual is suspended in many, but not all, cases,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration. “This rises to the level of requiring a suspension.”

A State Department official declined to comment on whether Mrs. Clinton still holds her clearance or whether it is under review by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which awards and suspends security clearances.

Does this mean we can expect equal treatment? Hmmm: Petraeus investigator managing DoJ probe into Hillary server

The investigation into The Saga of the Secret Server took a couple of interesting turns yesterday evening. Many critics of the slow response from the Department of Justice to Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of an unauthorized and unsecured secret server have wondered why the Obama administration seemed much more interested in prosecuting former CIA Director and Iraq War genius David Petraeus for a less-impactful exposure. The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig, Karen Tumulty, and Rosalind Helderman noted at the bottom of their late-afternoon roundup that the pressure may be picking up after all:

The investigation is being overseen by two veteran prosecutors in the Justice Department’s National Security Division. One of them helped manage the prosecution of David H. Petraeus, the retired general and former CIA director who was sentenced to probation earlier this year after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was also fined $100,000.

The Post also noted that Hillary’s initial public declarations on this have turned out to be “false,” in their terminology . . .

What? She lied? Whodda thunk? But would an equivalent decision and punishment actually hurt Hillary's prospects? I doubt it. Her husband lied under oath, and was punished by having his license to practice law removed. It didn't affect his popularity among democrats substantially.

Poll: Two percent of voters think Hillary told the truth about e-mail server — and only three percent of Democrats

In a poll of 1,008 registered voters, 58% say Hillary lied about the e-mails, and 54% believe she damaged national security:

A Fox News poll released Friday finds a 58 percent majority thinks Clinton “knowingly lied” when she announced in a March press conference that no emails on her private server contained classified information.  A third says there is “another explanation” for internal government investigators determining secret info was in fact on Clinton’s server (33 percent).
Moreover, by a 54-37 percent margin, voters feel Clinton put our national security at risk by using a private email server.

The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying.  On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters — who are presumably very familiar with e-mail — the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.

Frankly, this question is designed to let respondents get off the hook for deciding whether Hillary lied or not. The middle option of another explanation implies incompetency — not exactly a good look for a presidential candidate — or some milder form of dishonesty. And yet, not many voters took the middle option. Self-described liberal, Democrats, and black voters all had majorities choosing the less-bad option, but almost none of them chose told the truth.

In short, she's a liar, but she's our liar.

And Hillary is displaying pride in her ability to hide her corruption: Hillary on Snapchat: I love how messages 'disappear all by themselves'

Clinton joked at the annual Iowa Democratic Wing Ding on Friday that social media service Snapchat, known for messages that disappear instantly, is perfect for her.

“By the way, you may have seen that I have recently launched a Snapchat account,” she said. “I love it — those messages disappear all by themselves.”

Are she and Huma swapping nude selfies? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And Jonah Goldberg notes how the Hillary supporting MSM is shifting blame from Hillary to the server itself:

. . .The first rule of Clintonism is that someone else is always to blame.

That’s why the first iteration of Clinton’s defense was that evil Republicans were simply smearing her.

When that didn’t stick, Team Clinton expanded the indictment to include the partisan witch hunt by that famously right-wing organ the New York Times and two independent inspectors general (one at the State Department, the other for the intelligence community).

The reason the intelligence community’s IG referred the case to the Justice Department stems from the apparent fact that Clinton mishandled classified information, which she denied.

An investigation into a random sample of just 40 e-mails from a batch of more than 30,000 revealed that four contained classified information and at least two were “top secret.”

So now that the FBI and the Justice Department, both run by Obama appointees, are on the case, attacking the motives of inconvenient people no longer works. So the Clinton campaign has invoked a little-known codicil to the first rule of Clintonism: Blame an inanimate object.

The amazing thing is that this spin isn’t coming directly from the campaign but from the reporters covering it.

National Public Radio’s Tamara Keith reported Wednesday morning that the inquiry “isn’t targeted directly at [Clinton]” and is simply intended to determine whether the server was secure.

Business Insider reported that “Clinton’s private server is under investigation by the FBI, though Clinton is not a target of the investigation.”

Even the conservative Washington Free Beacon has fallen into using this locution, referring to the “private e-mail server being investigated by the FBI.”

McClatchy’s Anita Kumar, who helped break the story that two of the e-mails were top secret, felt compelled to step on her own scoop.

She said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “there are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal e-mail and a personal server.”
. . .
Hopefully the server will one day be able to testify on its own behalf: “I was just following orders.”