Fresh Scat Around Clinton.com

The FBI is still tracking her, and now it's going to the agencies that generated the top secret (and worse) data that coursed through Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server. Remember, the rule is that only the agency that classifies the data has the right to change the classification. So Hillary could have, potentially, unclassified State Dept. secrets, but not CIA, NSA, DOD, DOE etc etc secrets. Ed Morrissey at HotAir explains why this is bad news for Hillary:

This move shows that the FBI is building a real case against someone, at least. If all they wanted to do was review the scandal to check a box, they would stop with the IG’s declarations and the State Department responses about “interagency disputes.” By going straight to the individual originators of the information, the FBI eliminates that (extremely weak) defense. That’s not just an investigative protocol; it’s a prosecutorial protocol. They want to have witnesses to attest to the sensitive nature of the information, and perhaps more importantly how it was handled prior to when the State Department’s top officials began accessing it.

Kurt Schlicter explains how tough it actually is to move secrets from the secured systems to Hillary's Dell. It's not just a simple cut and paste. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell agrees with me "Foreign governments have Hillary's email."

“I don’t think that was a very good judgment,” he added of Clinton’s decision to use the private server for official State Department business. “I don’t know who gave her that advice, but it was not good advice.”

For her part, Hillary has doubled down and reversed her one time (literally) apology for the email scandal:

“I’m not willing to say it was an error in judgment,” she told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “Nothing I did was wrong.”

Huh? In September, she said: “As I look back at it now . . . I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

Et tu Washington Post? 'WaPo': Hillary 'STILL Doesn't Have A Good Answer' on Emails . . ,

But it's clear from Clinton's response to Cuomo's prodding on Monday night that she simply doesn't really understand why the issue is still a problem for her — in the primary fight against Sanders and/or the general election race. When asked whether she should have apologized sooner, Clinton responded: "I had no intention of doing anything other than having a convenient way of communicating, and it turned out not to be so convenient. So again, we’ve answered every question and we will continue to do so."

 And Kathleen Parker?: Clinton's cracked credibility.

But more recent issues of inaccuracies are both concerning and consequential. We now know with certainty (thanks to an email from Clinton to daughter Chelsea the night of the Benghazi attacks) that the then-secretary of state knew it was a terrorist attack, contrary to official reports in the days afterward about street riots that escalated. We also know from the intelligence community inspector general that her private server contained information ranked beyond top-secret, contradicting her assertions to the contrary.

What difference at this point does any of it make? When it comes to public trust in a presidential candidate—everything.

 But that would require some to crack.

Smitty, at The Other McCain reports that Clinton may be planning to appoint a retired community organizer to the Supreme Court:

Shall not eight years of the personal pronoun pumping pipsqueak have been enough? The price of Her Majesty’s election, despite being the least suitable person since Barack Obama, may become apparent:

While at a rally in Decorah, Iowa, on Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what she thought about nominating President Obama to the highest court.
“Wow, what a great idea, nobody has ever suggested that to me,” Clinton said.. . .

It’s clear that our country is mismanaged by a homo bureaucratus infestation, where the motto is “fail upward”, but enough is enough.

And even worse,  With mom still running, Chelsea Clinton’s already gearing up for White House bid. Arghh! A spoiled child of privilege with no record of accomplishment is thinking of running for what she presumes is her entitlement?

On the "Hillary's Health" front, according to John Podhoretz at the New York Post Hillary needs to switch to decaf before opening her mouth again. It takes a lot of words to cover up the failures of her stint at the State Department. DrJohn at Flopping Aces has more serious thought Hillary’s coughing fits are symptoms of pulmonary emboli

. . . But the coughing fits are something else. I kind of put the first one in mind storage but the second episode compelled me to pay closer attention. I’ve seen this before and I’ve seen it in a close friend of mine.

These coughing fits are a symptom of pulmonary emboli being released into the circulation and entering the lungs. It’s usually a dry cough, but it turns into hemoptysis (coughing up blood) it’s a real problem. Cerebral venous thromboses of size have the potential to cause strokes or infarcts of the brain. Venal circulation returns blood to the heart, which directs it to the lungs for re-oxygenation via the pulmonary artery. Arteries bring blood to organs, veins take it away from organs. If a clot of sufficient size blocks the pulmonary artery, it’s lights out, and quickly. Such clots usually result from deep vein thrombosis. It’s not common, but CVST’s (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) can lead to pulmonary emboli. If small clots form or dislodge from the wall of a vein they travel to the heart and then to the lung where they can get lodged in the alveoli and causes irritation and subsequent coughing.For more see here, here, and here. In Clinton’s case it may be that she is still forming clots at the site of the injury or she may be having bits separate from a not fully resolved clot.

That’s what I believe we’re seeing.

Which puts a premium on her choice of VP.

Ann Althouse reviews Camille Paglia's essay "psycho analyzing" Hillary and it's not pretty:

This new Salon essay is getting attention for calling Hillary's feminism "blame-men-first feminism," but the core of the piece is psychoanalyzing Hillary, attributing her personality to the force of her dominating and abusive father. It makes her sound like not much of a feminist at all, but a throwback "embracing and reaffirming the painful decisions made by her own mother."

The “enabling” with which Hillary has been charged in her conflicted marriage may actually have been the pitying indulgence and half-scornful toleration that she first directed toward her brothers. She demoted her husband to a fraternal role—the shiftless “bad boy” in chronic need of scolding and spanking....
Childhood photos of Bill Clinton show his gregarious, fun-loving charm already fully formed. The young Hillary Rodham, in contrast, looks armored, with a sharp gaze and a tense, over-bright smile. Like many first-born daughters, she became her father’s favorite son, marginalizing her less self-assured and accomplished brothers. . .

What does that even mean and how is it supported by the psychoanalysis of the rest of the article? It's somewhat interesting, but rather banal, to say that a smart girl with a dominant father became acareer achiever and never cultivated an air of silky, soothing, warm hospitality.

But how does that establish that she "privileges elite professional women at men’s expense"? Yes, I know that Paglia inserted some boilerplate about the difference between Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem at the beginning of the essay. Even assuming that Steinem eclipsed Friedan and that Steinem's feminism is "blame men first," I don't see how that's saying much about Hillary Clinton.

The lesbian feminist blames Hillary's father, and men in general? How banal. Ann Althouse, reading Salon so you don't have to.