A Brief Report from Clinton.com

Not much accumulation since yesterday, however, Politico covers The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic - An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why. Because she thought she had secrets to hide, and thought she could get away with it.

. . . Based on the emails the State Department released, Clinton sent or received an average of 21 work emails per day during her tenure—including on her numerous trips overseas, when email must have been a lifeline for communication. But there are numerous odd low-traffic days in the email record during her foreign travel. For example, from July 17-23, 2009, Clinton made a high-profile visit to India and Thailand. She not only issued a pivotal joint statement with the Indian government on nuclear technology, she also met with Indian billionaires at the start of her visit. On July 22, she met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Thailand to discuss arms control. And yet, if you look at what she claims is her complete email record released by the State Department, on July 18 and July 20 of this trip, she did not send or receive a single email that was deemed work-related.

Could it be that Team Clinton avoided email while she was traveling as a security precaution? Her pattern during other travels doesn’t support that possible explanation. During her 2010 visit to Ukraine on July 1-2, for example, she sent and received 38 emails over both days. During her June 27-29, 2012, visit to St. Petersburg, Russia, she sent and received 65 emails over those three days.

Could it be that her BlackBerry didn’t work in certain countries? No. The server back in Chappaqua would still be receiving emails whether the BlackBerry was connected or not. Short of the server going down, for which there is no evidence, there is no technological explanation for this gap.

There are other anomalies. The email traffic for the secretary of state seems for the most part to be event-driven. For example, during Muammar Qadhafi’s removal from power in Libya, on Aug. 22, 2011, Clinton received 133 work-related emails, way more than average. However, there are some important events with virtually no corresponding email traffic. One useful approach in determining what emails might be missing is to overlay the Clinton emails with State Department cables that were released via WikiLeaks. As one might expect, the volume of cables and the volume of emails about specific events tend to rise and fall together. (Obviously, we cannot account for emails redacted prior to public release.) Consider these examples: the earthquake and rebuilding of Haiti, the Copenhagen climate treaty, the military coup in Honduras and diplomatic matters concerning the Lisbon Treaty. As we demonstrate below, the number of State Department cables and Clinton emails either sent or received that mention these matters rise and fall together.

But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”
. . .
The media has spent a lot of time parsing through the Clinton emails that already have been released—compiling lists, looking for specific names or discussion of particular issues. But they ought to pay more attention to the holes. Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s not there.

Glenn Reynolds asks Can we ever trust the Democrats? In the the near term, probably not. It would help if they wouldn't nominate an unindicted felon, but the problems go deeper than that:

. . . One of the first signs that we were going to have problems with accountability in the Obama Administration was the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin in 2009. Walpin was investigating misuse of funds in Americorps. His investigation centered on NBA star, Sacramento mayor, and prominent Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, who had gotten $847,673 in federal money for a school called St. Hope.

The problem is, the money didn’t go to the school, and Johnson also was using Americorps workers as, essentially, personal servants: "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car and running personal errands."

Walpin recommended that Johnson and the St. Hope school be barred from receiving future federal funds. When, under pressure, Walpin refused to change his recommendation, he got a call from a White House lawyer telling him that he was fired. Walpin died recently, struck by a car as he crossed a street in New York City.

Likewise, Democrats have attacked an IRS watchdog, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, for investigating the IRS’s abuses of Tea Party-linked groups. And the Homeland Security Inspector General’s office was charged with whitewashing reports of Secret Service and other federal law enforcement officials patronizing prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia in connection with a visit by President Obama.

If Hoyer cared about trustworthiness, he’d back stronger protections for Inspectors General, instead of going along with the Obama administration’s (successful) efforts to weaken them.

And even when people are caught doing wrong, there aren’t consequences. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper faced no consequences for lying to Congress about spy programs. Hillary Clinton wasn’t prosecuted for her handling of email and for running an illegal private server, leading even Maureen Dowd to comment, “If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, ‘extremely careless’ with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.” House Speaker Paul Ryan asked Clapper to block Hillary’s access to classified information, but Clapper, having escaped consequences himself, didn’t seem inclined to do anything. And, of course, all the way back at the beginning of the Obama Administration, Tim Geithner, was nominated and confirmed to be Treasury Secretary despite a history of tax-dodging. That didn’t do much for trust.

Via Wombat-socho's "In The Mailbox: 07.14.16",  Poll: 67% Think Hillary Clinton Is “Not Honest And Trustworthy,” All-Time High… 33% still have their head's in the sand.

But thou shalt not criticize the queen-in-waiting to a national audience: MYSTERY: CNN loses feed as reporter critiques Hillary Clinton



Sure, it could be a coincidence . . .

All the rest is Hillary's bad polling: Another poll sees a drop in Hillary’s numbers after the FBI announcement on Emailgate, Crumble: Hillary sinks in NYT/CBS poll over Emailgate probe, Oof: Hillary takes big hit in Florida Q-poll, and Democrats ‘freaked out’ about polls in meeting with Clinton. It's too early to take much stock in polls, but it does suggest that the win is within Trump's grasp. Expect the democrats/media to become increasingly shrill in their calls of racism.