Hillary Clinton’s Email Hairball Summarized in 11 Points (a Test of Presidential Character)

Reader ScottW summarized this very thorough explainer from the Washington Post of March 27: “How Clinton’s email scandal took root”. Hoisted from comments and very lightly edited:

Some takeaways from the Clinton email server scandal per the Post’s article:

1. No State Department head (probably no government employee) ever exclusively used a private email server for both private and public email messages.

2. The private server was not encrypted for two months after Sec. of State Clinton commenced using it.

3. Bryan Pagliano, the individual in charge of “security” and maintenance of the server, originally installed it for the Clinton Foundation and other private family email users.

4. That same individual was hired at State to “moonlight” in maintaining Clinton’s private server. Experts claim a team of people is needed to run such a site. The three supervisors of this individual at State did not even know he was working on Clinton’s private server.

5. Clinton was told early on she should not (nor should any government employee) use her private Blackberry for State business. She was warned it could be hacked into and used as a listening device. She said she understood. She nevertheless continued using it throughout her tenure at home and abroad.

6. When the first FOIA for her email messages was initially submitted she responded there were none.

7. Only after the Benghazi controversy heated up, did she admit there were over 30,000 email messages concerning State Department Business. She unilaterally claimed another 30,000 plus emails were private. Side note: Public officials normally don’t have the luxury of deciding which email messages are public business, as opposed to private matters.

8. She stated there were no classified documents on the private email survivor.

9. Over 2,000 classified email chains were found on the server. Clinton claimed they were all classified after the fact. This is not true. A unspecified number were in fact classified (or of higher classification) at the time they landed on her server. Clinton herself authored emails that contained classified material.

10. Clinton’s claim of convenience in using one device relates to the 7th floor at State in which she worked. They offered to put in a terminal for her to check and send private email messages from her 7th floor office. Clinton does not use desktop computers and declined the workaround.

11. Clinton did what Clinton wanted to do despite FOIA regulations, security concerns, etc. She wanted to bring her private Blackberry into her office and use a single device abroad. And that is exactly what she did.

Any other government official engaging in such widespread misconduct would be fired, possibly prosecuted, and would lose her security clearance.

Lambert here:

Clinton’s email hairball foreshadows her character as President. As ScottW comments: “Clinton did what Clinton wanted to do.” And that’s regardless of what she said, and despite advice given to her in good faith. So if Clinton wants TPP, a Grand Bargain, or war in [insert country here], that’s what she’ll go for, regardless of what she says on the trail, or the counsel of the wise.

Clinton’s email hairball foreshadows the nature of her administration. As WaPo says:

From the earliest days, Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account, documents and interviews show.

Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations [i.e., broke] governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server.

In other words, Clinton’s staffers, rather like Erlichman and Haldeman, regard themselves not as public servants, but as Clinton’s servants.

Both Yves and I scanned the last release of Clinton emails, and were shocked by the slavish sycophancy of Clinton’s inner circle. In fact, in the higher levels of the Democratic nomenklatura where Clinton resides, sycophancy is pervasive. Thomas Frank in Harpers reports on a Clinton Foundation production:

Everyone strode with polished informality about the stage, reading their lines from an invisible tele­prompter. And back and forth, the presenters called out to one another in tones of supportiveness and sweet flattery. …

In her introduction to the event, for example, the TV star America Ferrera, who has appeared at many Clinton events both philanthropic and political, gave a shout-out to the “incredible women who have brought us all here today” and the “amazing girls” whose conversation she had been permitted to join. Then Chelsea Clinton, who announced herself “completely awed” by the “incredible swell of people and partners” who had participated in some event the previous day, invited us to hearken to the “inspiring voices of leaders, of communities, of companies, of countries.”

Those were just the first few minutes. It kept on like that for hours. When someone’s “potential” was mentioned, it was described as “boundless.” People’s “stories” were “compelling” when they weren’t “inspiring,” “incredible,” or “incredibly inspiring.” A Kenyan activist was introduced as “the incomparable.”

“Incredible swell.” Citizens, considering Clinton for a moment as a public official, would be better served were her subordinates to focus on “laws and regulations,” as opposed to “accommodating [her] desire.” As Richard Nixon famously said: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” A similar dynamic seems to be at play in HillaryLand.

All that said, a few of the Inside Baseball issues:

A) Obama can’t endorse Clinton until this matter is resolved, because if he does so before the FBI issues the all clear, he looks like he’s dictating the outcome of an investigation. (Obama also hates to look bad; he’s like a cat walking backward away from a dish of spilled milk if he thinks he’s going to look bad. Therefore, he can’t be happy with Clinton at all.)

B) Clinton would doubtless prefer Obama’s endorsement before the Democratic National Convention (July 25-28), or even before the California primary (June 7).

C) The FBI, purely for its own motives of maintaining institutional prerogatives, will not take kindly to having the timing of its investigations dictated by the electoral calendar, corrupt and politicized though they are.

D) The FBI granted Bryan Pagliano immunity. Generally, that’s the classic investigative technique to gather information to indict people higher up the food chain.

E) None of the higher-ups — that we know of — have lawyered up. Except Clinton, of course.

F) Typically, an underling takes the fall. But which underling? Huma Abedin? That’s the same as taking down Clinton herself! And the WaPo story makes clear that Clinton’s entire inner circle either knew, or should have known. (And who knows what other peccadill[o|a]s will come out, under that scenario?)

G) FBI Director James Comey, a director of scandal-plagued HSBC Holdings, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, who headed the Valerie Plame investigation when he worked for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald indicted “Scooter” Libby, but most definitely not Libby’s boss, Vice President Dick Cheney. So in regard to point F, the administration might take the view that Comey has a track record of getting the toothpaste at least partially back in the tube.

Shorter: There’s fire here, not just smoke.

Readers, thoughts?

NOTE Of course, Clinton privatizing her public email is corrupt by definition.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


    1. Aaron Aarons

      Very interesting. But the praise for Hindu chauvinist Narendra Modi is disgusting.

      Interestingly, Congressperson Tulsi Gabbard, a convert to Hinduism and supporter of Modi and his party, the BJP, is also an important backer of Sanders.

  1. Fredrick

    All this smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the violation of federal law: 18 U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

    That was done by Hilary and she alone is responsible for her conduct.

    1. Thor's Hammer

      Crimes for which Clinton must be held accountable in a court of law:

      1- Theft: as per 18 U.S. Code #1924. The act of removal or copying classified documents to her private server.
      2- Treason: Knowingly placing classified and highly secret documents in full view of foreign governments and potential terrorists– which she did in spite of explicitly being told of the risks.

      If Clinton is not tried for these crimes it is proof positive that the USA is an oligarchy where rulers are above the law.

      1. Poobah

        I heard the exact same nonsense on FNC!!!
        One difference: no mention of “oligarchy”. It’s Democrats who are above the law on FNC…..though the accusations are exactly the same.

  2. Steve in Flyover

    Why anyone thinks that Clinton (and should anyone forget, her husband) is even “qualified” to be White House poop scooper totally baffles me.

    Her supporters evidently think all of these investigations come around because “they hate her”. Instead, I suggest that they keep coming up because the Clintons are unreformed sleazeballs.

    1. Jason

      She looks qualified when compared to Trump.

      She’s objectively awful, but when faced with a choice between mere corrupt awfulness and the stupidity and fascism that is Trump… what are we supposed to do? Voting third party is only a theoretical option, because the Dems and Reps have everything locked down.

      I get than the in the longer term changing the existing parties of founding new ones with real power is ideal, but that doesn’t solve the problem of getting us through the next four years. And Clinton seems less likely to screw things up horribly than Trump.

      1. Ishmael

        Thanks for the humor, it was a rather overcast and I was feeling slightly down.

        I will give you this, at Hitlary at the wheel I am sure this car will be driven off of the cliff and maybe we will finally get some real change.

        If you want to see how Hitlary can screw-up the simplest thing then all you have to do is look at the “Easy-button” episode with Putin. Now you might ask yourself why something so easy got screwed up so badly. Let me tell you a secret, Hitlary only goes to her toadies and since they are toadies then by definition they are incompetent and lèche-cul to someone so incompetent. I mean if you are competent and the head of the State Department could you not find some one who spoke impeccable Russia and then maybe have a second and third person review it and make sure it says what you want it to. I mean it is not like this is something that world peace could hang on or anything like that. No one of your toddies probably googles its.

        The whole e-mail situation demonstrates (1) incompetence and (2) hubris.

        In case you do not know the easy button story here it is.


        1. optimader

          I stopped reading at She looks qualified Can you summarize? Was it a door knob comparison?

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        The next four years could be darkest.

        And something will come after.

        Of course, after the dawn of the Dark Ages, it just got darker.

        1. optimader

          The next four years could be darkest.
          How long did Nixon last into his second term?
          She sure better pull a rabbit out of the hat for her running mate if she gets the nod before the cuffs.

      3. different clue

        I would support this logic with regard to Clinton vs. Establishment Certified Republican. But Clinton versus Trump? I am not so sure.

        Which one would be the More Effective Evil, in the deathless phrase of Black Agenda Report?

        Which one would be more likely to sign every Free Trade Agreement crossing herm’s desk? Which one would be more likely to risk nuclear war with Russia over the issue of whether Biden’s other son gets to profit from fracking all over East Ukraine?

        At the very least, I wish to see what pack of thinking-brain dogs each candidate uses for cerebro-prosthesis purposes.

        And who knows . . . Sanders might end be able to hack, slash, gouge and claw his way into the Dparty nomination his own self. With enough help from his movement.

      4. cwaltz

        I don’t think third party is a “theory” at all. It’s an option. The fact that you choose not to avail yourself of it instead of calling it theoretical is all you.

      5. fajensen

        So, you want us to elect an accomplished crook rather than a mere dabbler in the art?

        For my part, *I*, prefer an evil that screws “things” – a.k.a. it’s own machinations up royally. The justice system knows well how to process those.

    2. hunkerdown

      “Clinton does not use desktop computers”

      Which utterly disqualifies Hillary from ANY position of power that involves developed economies.

      Which explains a lot of her policy outcomes, too.

  3. dcblogger

    FBI Director James Comey, a director of scandal-plagued HSBC Holdings,
    wow, I did not know that. That confirms my terrible opinion of him.

      1. Thor's Hammer

        There you have your answer as to the results of the FBI “investigation.” Worked for Cheney/Bush with the 911 Commission, so why shouldn’t Clinton be granted the same powers?

    1. sgt_doom

      And on the BoD of the National Chamber Litigation Center, also counsel at Lockheed Martin, also was with the world’s largest hedge fund, also clerked for Bush family member, Judge John Walker, also was with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Citizens United — Bush v. Gore, Iran Contra, etc., etc.

      1. sgt_doom

        Don’t know if he was related to anyone like the last FBI director, though, Robert Mueller III, who was the grandnephew of Richard Bissell, one of the three top CIA dudes that President Kennedy fired. Mueller’s family wealth came from his mother’s side, the Truesdales, which were connected to the Rockefeller family: it was a Truesdale who blow up several competing refineries for the Rockefeller family — and another Truesdale defended him. The Truesdale family ended up with a railroad, probably in payment.

        Interesting to note that Mueller’s wife’s maiden name is Cabell, one of the other two CIA guys fired by Kennedy was Gen. Cabell, whose brother was Mayor Earl Cabell of Dallas on the day JFK was murdered!

        Wonder if Comey is related to anyone connected . . . .

    2. redleg

      Comey did stand up, and successfully at that, to the Cheney administration regarding unfettered surveillance when his boss Ashcroft was hospitalized with pancreatitis. The administration backed down that time. So Comey might not be the best person for the job, but he demonstrated he posessed a spine at least once when faced with a bigwig attempting to get away with something nefarious.

      1. pretzelattack

        i think that was loyalty to his boss. afaik he hasn’t evinced such concern about surveillance, since. one can admire the loyalty i suppose, but then how do you distinguish that from the loyalty of gordon liddy or scooter libby–aside from one instance having a good result.

  4. ScottW

    If it is true 147 FBI agents are working on this matter, it seems to suggest it goes far beyond whether Hillary broke any laws by retaining confidential documents on her private email server. There aren’t that many witnesses to this caper.

    There is a “rumor” the FBI agents are also involved in looking at any links between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s actions as Sec. of State. Are those previously scrubbed 32,000 “private” emails gone forever? Maybe yes, maybe no, but if they were received by other individuals (e.g., Sydney Blumenthal), there would be a record. It is my understanding that a hack into Blumenthal’s emails revealed that Hillary was using a private email server–a fact she hid from the people when she responded there were no emails responsive to an earlier FOIA request.

    When Obama appointed Hillary as Sec. of State, the Foundation and Bill were supposed to steer clear of soliciting from donors whose government or business interests were intertwined with decisions made at the State Dept. Investigative articles establish foreign governments (Saudis, etc.) were donating to the Foundation at the same time Clinton was approving sales of weapons to them. At the same time, the weapons manufacturers were donating to the Foundation and Bill apparently made money from speaking fees that violated the agreement to not solicit donations from entities involved with State Dept. business. This is complicated and would take lots of agents to unravel.

    No matter how all of this turns out legally, it will not change the fact the Clintons turned public office into the biggest cash cow in political history. Why they are able to getting anywhere near 1600 Penn. Ave. again is one of the great tragedies of American politics.

      1. Pavel

        They can only wish… played by Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, in their primes!
        Especially Faye… swoon!

    1. Titus Pullo

      The FBI has recovered the “deleted” emails. Mostly because Clinton is too hubristic to understand how to actually wipe a server (and then destroy it by having it ground up). Mostly because Clinton thinks she is above the law. Well that’s my opinion borne out by the serial revelations in this mess.

      You would think she would be better at the cover-up, but she doesn’t surround herself with the most competent people, if her campaigns for President are any indication.

    2. apber

      She may, just may get a pass on the email thingey, but the pay-for-play corruption for the Clinton Foundation is another matter. Connecting the dots between speeches given by Bill and then favors granted shortly thereafter by the State Department to those who paid for the speeches stinks to high heaven.

      1. optimader

        The FEEBS like playing the RICO angles ’cause its easy and they are inherently lazy..so I have heard as much.

    3. Jim Haygood

      ‘Are those previously scrubbed 32,000 “private” emails gone forever?’

      Reportedly the FBI succeeded in manually extracting the 30,000-plus emails that Hillary unilaterally deleted, from the hard disk of the recovered server.

      Reviewing 30,000 more emails is the most plausible reason for assigning 147 agents to the case. It’s a vast amount of material to read, summarize, correlate … and then interview key correspondents on the other end of the messages. Field trip!

      Hillary’s unilateral deletion smacks of evidence destruction, a flaming red flag to prosecutors, judges, and for damned sure James Comey.

      Knowing the Clintons’ modus operandi, it’s a very solid presumption that (1) some of the deleted emails were work-related and (2) some emails likely document the use of Hillary’s public office for bribery and influence peddling (e.g., by having Bill front-run her foreign visits to collect speech fees in return for favorable official treatment from Hillary).

      Even discounting the Attorney General’s office having been transformed into personal counsel to the president by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, it is still likely that Hillary’s long criminal career is approaching its endpoint.

      1. Jess

        “it is still likely that Hillary’s long criminal career is approaching its endpoint.”

        We can only hope.

        1. Jim Haygood

          U.K. betting site Paddy Power offers 2/5 odds of Hillary becoming president.

          Conditional probability [revision of odds based on new info] is going to change that.

      2. optimader

        Reviewing 30,000 more emails is the most plausible reason for assigning 147 agents to the case. It’s a vast amount of material to read, summarize, correlate

        A lot of PostIt Notes, pins and thread. The drywall will look like a pincushion

  5. DJG

    I think that Clinton should be treated like Chelsea Manning. A little solitary confinement is good for the prosecution’s case, now isn’t it?

    And who will take the fall? I hope that Monica Lewinsky has moved to Paris or somewhere. I’m sure that the Clintons will think of some way of blaming it on That Woman.

    1. thoughtful person

      Wen Ho Lee, the los alamos scientist, who made the mistake of taking some classified calculations home to work on, was given one year of solitary confinement under President Clinton.

      Maybe some proportional amount of prison time?

      On the other we have a many other criminals walking around (bankers and their fraudulent insured mortgage backed securities comes to mind, Bush Cheney and their illegal wars of agression…).

      If Clinton is convicted (low odds) while all these much worse ones walk what does that say?

      Wow, we convicted Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff, while the banksters walk…same old, same old…

  6. Bill Smith

    How serious was Bryan Pagliano’s liability? Sure, financial discourse issues as he never disclosed he had multiple jobs. Would he have liability for mishandling classified information because he set up the server?
    I don’t know for sure but it seems his risk is low? Does that mean it wasn’t a big deal that he got immunity?

    1. Eduardo Quince

      In my layman’s opinion, the fact that Pagliano was granted immunity implies that any illegalities on his part were minor relative to the alleged illegalities under investigation. Were he suspected of serious illegality, he more likely would have been offered a deal short of immunity (i.e., leniency).

    2. apber

      Pagliano was granted, by Hillary, access to classified info without having the requisite security clearances; a big no no and thus makes him liable for prosecution under the law. There is the case of a sailor who texted a selfie to his girlfriend standing in front of a highly classified weapons system on board a Navy ship. The disclosure of this system was not intentional, but he’s now serving time.

      1. cwaltz

        That’s the part that pisses me off. Even this administration has admitted that there was wrongdoing. However, they argue that it needs to be proven that she had criminal INTENT. If the threshold of intent was so low in cases like this then why all of a sudden is it so high for someone with a much higher rank. In Navy Rights and Responsibilities, the argument for rank having its privileges is that you had greater responsibility and accountability the higher up the food chain you went. That no longer appears to be the case(if it ever in reality was.) We’ve got people serving time for way less than what Secretary Clinton did.

        1. Bas

          The rub there is collateral damage, IMO–uncovering the other stuff by other people. She can’t be taken down without discovery revealing other people’s shenanigans. The Too Big To Be Jailed.

    3. redleg

      Reading the State Dept rules and related statues, they both explicitly state that any person aiding and abetting the violation of the law constitutes conspiracy and all involved parties are prosecuted equally.
      So server dude, having aided and abetted HRCs multiple counts of mishandling documents (10 years and $50k fine max per count) would face the same charges as HRC, add would HRC for having him set up the server and BlackBerry.

      See 12 FAM 558 for State Dept security violation punishments.

    1. ScottW

      And worth highlighting is how no one doing what Hillary has done would retain her security clearance. She was warned by the State Dept. Intelligence officials not to use an unsecured Blackberry at her 7th floor office and not to take a private Blackberry overseas, as it could easily be hacked and turned into a listening device. She warned her staff not to do so. Not only did Hillary take her private Blackberry overseas, and too her office but she took a Blackberry linked up to a private email server containing thousands of State Dept. Documents on it.

      I have never filled out a security clearance form, but my hunch is if Hillary answered the questions honestly her request for even the lowest level would be denied.

      1. Arizona Slim

        ISTR reading that Obama wanted to keep using his Blackberry. Okay, said the security people, But we’re going to have a special device made just for you.

        And that, people, is what Obama uses now. It’s a one-off handheld device that has a Presidential level of security.

      2. Jim Haygood

        As someone joked yesterday, Hillary will be the first president without a security clearance.

        Documents will be redacted of classified info by qualified staff and sent to her Blackberry as “nonpapers with no headings.”

        1. tony

          I doubt she’d mind. She can just pick policy according to which lobbyist promises the highest payout.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          That qualified staff would be Bill.

          “Hill and I, we are a team,” says Billie.

        3. JCC

          Somehow I doubt anything would be redacted, although it’s a nice thought.

          This article has a nice summary on clearances when it comes to privilege vs responsibilities:


          Vice Admiral Ted Branch has held the highest position possible in Naval Intelligence – with no clearance for over 850 days. Does anyone think no one is fully briefing him?

          If TPTB can stall this investigation for this long, how long can they stall Hillary’s screw-up? Who knows… all we know for sure is that there are two sets of laws, one for them and one for the sailor that took the selfie mentioned by apber above.

    2. Karen

      The subheadline to that article, “Unless, of course, there is some kind of separate system of justice for the powerful…” says it all.

      I just recently read Matt Taibbi’s book “Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap,” which reminded me that not one single bankster has even been personally charged with a crime. Unlike what happened in the aftermath of the 1980s S&L crisis.

      Go Bernie! I bet HE won’t appoint an Eric Holder lookalike to Justice.

      1. sierra7

        “……not one single bankster has even been personally charged with a crime. Unlike what happened in the aftermath of the 1980s S&L crisis.”
        That’s still the rancid pie in the refrigerator!

  7. John Wright

    When I read of Clinton’s questionable decisions (email, Iraq, TPP, financial reform, Syria, Iran) I am reminded of the statement from her “people” that “Hillary Clinton is the smartest person in the room”.

    Perhaps that relative statement is a simply a reflection on the other people in the room.

    1. Pavel

      Other people in the room: Huma Abedin, who “sticks by her man” Carlos Danger, the serial sexter/liar/creepster. He who thought it would be a good idea to run for NYC mayor after the first scandal, whilst engaging in a second?

      Why is it that most of the Clinton people are so damned sleazy?

    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      I seem to be in lengthy quotation mode today, so on “the smartest person in the room,” from Gibson’s Count Zero:

      Ten years ago, you went in the Gentleman Loser and tried telling any of the top jocks you talked with ghosts in the matrix, they’d have figured you were crazy.”

      “A wilson,” Bobby put in. feeling left out and no longer as Important.

      The Finn looked at him, blankly. “A what?”

      “A wilson. A fuck-up. It’s hotdogger talk, I guess.” Did it again. Shit.

      he Finn gave him a very strange look. “Jesus. That’s your word for it, huh? Christ, I know the guy .”


      “Bodine Wilson,” he said. `First guy I ever knew wound up as a figure of speech.”

      “Was he stupid?” Bobby asked, immediately regretting it.

      “Stupid? Shit, no, he was smart as hell.” The Finn stubbed his cigarette out in a cracked ceramic Campan ashtray. “Just a total fuck-up, was all.”

      So maybe someday the Clintons will end up as a figure of speech….

  8. Watt4Bob

    Given the fact that the FBI has a long history of using its investigative powers for political coercion as opposed to law enforcement, I hesitate to putting any hope in them bringing Hillary to justice.

    It seems in most cases involving politicians of her stature that barring other developments, their standard procedure would be to use their ‘intel’ to ‘influence’ her behavior.

    And that begs the question; which person or persons are in the position to influence the FBI as to how to manipulate the POTUS?

    As far as that goes, who was influencing J. Edgar for the decades during which the FBI’s dirty secrets stash was his personal property?

  9. RUKidding

    Clinton’s avid supporters continue to place their heads firmly in the sand, while continuing to chant the chorus that the Clintons have been hounded unfairly by the vast rightwing conspiracy.

    Yeah, I might be willing to concede that there has been some unfair hounding by the right, but most of the time there is a “there” there.

    The Clintons have managed to hide behind a curtain that says: “Hey, We really are you’re friend, and We really are progressive and liberal, and We really will do good things for the people.”

    I wish it were so, but it’s not. They are just as greedy and avaricious and power MAD as any of the other scum-sucking bottom dwellers out there in the political firmament.

    I might be willing to overlook a few things, but there’s just too, too many issues with Hillary Clinton to keep being told to “Look over there!!!!” She’s broken laws, she’s taken advantage of her positions, she’s greedy beyond measure, and at the end of the day, she’s a rightwing NeoCon NeoLiberal huge War HAWK. And frankly, please riddle for me how much she has really done in aid of women’s and children’s causes. Because I cannot think of much, myself.

    WHY am I supposed to vote for her?? Because she chooses to say she’s a “Democratic” politician? Oh yeah? Really. Pull the other one, please.

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Hillary supporters are believers. They believe in a fictional Hillary who will emerge from her shell when she’s President. Just wait for the real Hillary. Oh if you could only see her transfiguration.

      Email issues and Influence peddling with foreign governments or treason as we use to call it aside, Hillary is a terrible candidate. Belief in Team Blue and the fictional Hillary has overwhelmed every flaw with Hillary to date. Why would the emails bother her fiercest supporters? It might bother people who only see Hillary as inevitable. They might move to vote against her on this.

      1. tony

        Seriously, Trump’s supporters are far more amenable to facts than Clinton’s. Even the openly racist authoritarians.

      2. Jason

        Nope. Just terrified of Trump, and miserably convinced that the Dem establishment wouldn’t let Sanders get the nomination even if he’d won every single caucus and primary in the nation. (I keep wondering if Trump really is a Clinton plant. Nothing short of running against a stupid, evil fascist would be enough to get me to vote for her.)

    2. kimsarah

      As she tells the young undecideds, you don’t have to vote for her. She’ll represent you anyway.

  10. Carolinian

    Tell me again why Sanders is losing to this woman? Too much of a gentleman?

    And the real reason HRC insisted on using her Blackberry is that Obama asked for and received a specially made secure Blackberry and Hillary wanted one too and was denied and was jealous. After all in her mind she probably thought she should have been President instead of him and found it unfair. For your upper crust it’s all about the bennies.

    Bottom line: we are ruled by idiots.

        1. sierra7

          And, what does that make us, the “voters”?
          (Not disagreeing; just carrying it further)

    1. hreik

      yes, I said elsewhere that now I know why $hillary wants to be Potus. …..

      Secure Blackberry Envy.

      you cannot make this shit up.

    2. RP

      His “tone”, obviously.

      Way too fucking nice. Love the guy, but goddammit Bernie, will you take the gloves off EVER?

    3. Waldenpond

      Could be because he always pulls his punches. He repeatedly blames a corrupt campaign system but presents his colleagues as innnocent victims of the system. Has he once mentioned the money she took in during her time as SoS?

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        In an audience participation revolution, if there is dirty work to be done, or attacks to be launched, everyone, except ladies and gentlemen, has a chance to contribute.

        1. Waldenpond

          He could just mumble about how many foundations are merely tricks for the wealthy to avoid taxes (and add a little hand wave) or how politicians use them as a way to influence and get around our system of governing (with an eye roll). See how civil that was expressed? Didn’t mention bribery, laundering, repressive regimes, kickbacks or anything rude for goodness sake.

    4. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Wonder if Hillary and Obama struck a deal in 2008.

      “Whatever phone you have, I get it too.”

    5. asog

      Perhaps Bernie feels that attacking Hillery directly won’t get him her votes. He’s grinding out all the support he can from the people in the primaries, and hopes he’ll have enough to start working on the super delegates at the convention. If he does, he can talk about the implications that Hillery’s emails would have on her run if they chose her as the candidate and how dangerous it might be to the super delegates (to say nothing of the country) if they support her and she losses to Trump. And… with enough support from the people, Elizabeth Warren might be convinced to come out for him against Hillery, and together they can put pressure on the “establishment”. Between Bernie and Elizabeth, there aren’t any other members of congress more able to gather support for their causes. They’re both masters of embarassing (er, convincing) the members into doing the right thing.

    6. Andrew Watts

      Tell me again why Sanders is losing to this woman? Too much of a gentleman?

      The entire party apparatus is against Sanders and that matters a lot. Particularly in closed primaries where the party can skew results in their favor. (ie; the infamous coin tosses) In all honestly Sanders is doing better than I thought he would given the circumstances.


      I’m assuming a shady deal was struck between the Obama and Hillary factions in ’08 that brokered a compromise based upon unanimous support for Hillary’s presidential aspirations and other concessions.

      *edit/added x2*

      This might explain why Sanders performs better in open primary states.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        On your *edit/added*, I agree. Among the concessions were Hillary’s name not being nominated from the floor, and (I am persuaded, but on no evidence) the Clintons deep-sixing all the evidence of Obama’s Texas Caucus fraud.

        Let’s also remember that Clinton has raised money fro all the state parties. The Clinton camp portrays this as party building, but given how the party apparatus as the state level has disintegrated under Obama, it looks more like a pay-off, to me.

    1. Pavel

      thanks Furzy — I just watched the C-SPAN interview with diGenova. As you say he makes some rather good –and seemingly — straightforward points about the probable basic illegality of having the server at home. And the apparent intent to prevent successful FOIA claims. Highly recommended to those interested in the hairball :)

    2. Poobah

      Even though this is a lefty site, the bulk of the comments here would be welcome at FNC or Politco or RedState which should give you people pause…but it won’t.

      Of course, the best analysis of this big fat nothingburger is going to be found at RWNJ sites/cable channels. I recommend Lou Dobbs to y’all…he’s all over this.

  11. Angry Panda

    I would be incredibly shocked if the Obama DoJ came out and indicted Hillary Clinton for any thing whatsoever, whether before, during or even after the election campaign (win or lose). Aside from electoral politics, such a step would essentially require a “Night of the Long Knives” against Clinton supporters and donors within and without the party, and even if Obama wanted such a thing (which he surely does not, not when there are presidential libraries to be built and speaking fees to be collected), I do not believe he possesses the necessary skill or intestinal fortitude to carry it out.

    At the same time, one, it is unlikely that Obama will exonerate Clinton prior to the November election. That makes him look corrupt, to say the least, and he is nothing if not punctilious about his political looks. Secondarily, it is quite likely that she did violate a whole slew of statutes, such that if a lowly nobody had done the same thing they would have ended up with a 10-15 year prison term in a heartbeat.

    I suspect Obama is simply going to stall. That is, the DoJ will not do anything substantive, while the FBI will continue to carry out its investigation – perhaps even for real, just to have a dossier handy in case it’s ever needed. If Clinton wins, she can pardon (or choose not to indict herself); if she loses, let her have it out with the Republican administration. Either way, he, Obama, looks to have both done his duty to the party (if not quite as much as Clinton would have wanted), and paid lip service to due process of law and all that.

    All this probably still applies even if the DoJ is working the patsy angle. An indictment and all that follows before November would be a distraction to say the least; whereas after November it would be quite pointless unless the winner were a Republican and he – that Republican – wanted to score some points. To that end, I doubt that a vast section of the Republican establishment (at least the Washington part of it) would be inclined to do anything about the Clinton matter at all – doing vodka shots with McCain has to buy you something. On the other hand, perhaps they might. Who knows. Who cares, at that stage.

    As such, persons voting for Clinton (now or in November) ought only to be afraid of her losing to a Republican candidate – in November. Especially if said candidate uses “I will indict Hillary Clinton” as a campaign slogan (not a sure thing I’d say, but still a fun possibility to contemplate). Separately, yes, Hillary Clinton operates under an “I am queen, you are serfs” imperative, and is highly likely to support and advance the same right-of-center economic, fiscal and regulatory agenda as, for example, her husband had. In other news, water is wet, and the sun tends to rise in the east (based on an average of polls of respected scientists). The problem for her, of course, is that as President she would not be the only power center in Washington, and I am certain the Republican Congress would have an absolute field day opposing her at every turn (other than on things that really matter like the TPP, of course).

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Dropping the case onto a Republican House and Senate could be a disaster for Obama. Remember the Clinton money machine took off in November 2004. What does Obama offer if the GOP can connect him to obstruction of justice? They may not be able to prosecute, but Obama protecting a crook doesn’t look good especially as Hillary engages in every Clinton Inc activity.

    2. Titus Pullo

      I think this is the perfect case for the Deep State to assert its authority over the pols. If Clinton is indicted, she will have few defenders (say unlike Obama). Not that that makes me feel any better about her being held accountable.

      The Deep State is like what the Catholic Church was in the post-Renaissance era. It can put up with some shenanigans, but it won’t put up with complete disregard for it’s temporal authority. Clinton is no Henry VIII, even if Bill tried to be (rimshot) — I’m here all week.

        1. Titus Pullo

          I apologize. I missed that post when it came out.

          I guess, if you will permit a rephrasing, what I am trying to say is that the elements of the national security system exist within a dogma with legal consequences (which scale for the benefit of retaining and maximizing power) for violating the said dogma. This is somewhat analogous to the Catholic Church’s power during the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism (and the nation state).

          That analogy may or may not be very facile, so I will ponder it. I do appreciate your reply, even though it was given with little esteem for my idea. I respect your work (and everyone else’s here including the commentariat) and will seek to further revise this thinking.

          Do you think “National Security” state might be more apropos than Deep State? Since it has a legislation, with public and secret laws, as it’s foundation, as well as an organizing principle (nuclear weapons and warfare). If that is not what you consider facile (or patently naive), I will never bring up in these comments again.

          1. Titus Pullo

            Sorry, this reply is sniveling at best. I mean no disrespect. I hold you in the highest regard, so it is hard to hear criticism from you Lambert, though I thoroughly deserve it for making such a bald assertion without much rhetorical buttressing.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              No harm, no foul. I go with Madison: Parties are coalitions of factions, factions are driven by property interests (which includes rents). So Madison’s model permits conflict from the get-go. And let us remember that in, er, revolutionary situations, factional conflicts go all the way to the top; the ruling class splits, the political class splits, everything splits.

              Hence, I’m highly allergic to Deep State (besides the more in-the-weeds arguments presented in that post):

              a) because it presents the ruling class as monolithic which — at least not always — it is not; and

              b) because — and yes, this is an argument from consequences — seeing the ruling class as monolithic will prevent opportunities from being seized when they arise.

      1. optimader

        I puzzle on the thought process. Who just a couple of these “Deep State” participants??
        What do they do for their day jobs? Do they file Income Tax Returns? Go through Customs after traveling abroad? Can they bring a pet dog when traveling to OZ?

    3. lylo

      I tend to agree, re: Obama.
      If there is a way for him to bloviate in front of a few cameras while simultaneously doing nothing regardless of how little he threatens to do, that will absolutely be his choice. So I’m expecting pretty hands-off from him, besides the occasional bleating about rule of law versus political realities, or whatever non-statement he chooses.

      And no, one could literally not ask for an easier campaign than the one she has handed her opponents on a platter.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        If I had to speculate — and it would be irresponsible not to — I’d say that ultimately Obama will endorse Clinton, but in some passive aggressive manner, such that the endorsement is partially nullified or painful to her in some way (“You’re likeable enough”).

        1. optimader

          “Among all the folks running, Hillary is the most adequate woman candidate to be this Parties Nominee for POTUS in 2016”

    4. Lambert Strether Post author

      The more I think about this, the more I’m puzzled that the situation hasn’t been resolved already; I mean, surely HillaryLand has the operational capability to come up with a second Susan McDougal (particularly as they now have the financial resources and the money laundering capacity to buy whatever silence they need from the patsy).

      It reminds me of a passage from John D. McDonald’s The Turqoise Lament. Forgive the length. Meyer (not McGee) speaking, of a sociopath named Howie and his potential (female) victim:

      Let me put it in terms of an equation. H is for Howie. V is for victim. O is for opportunity. M is for motive, even though it is only a very casual and unimportant motive. D is for death. And so, time and again, we have H + O + M = V + D. Number the victims. V sub 1, V sub 2, V sub 3, up to God only knows what score. Maybe Linda Lewellen Brindle is V sub 20. Follow? Good. Now let us examine what is happening to the equation. It is stalled, short of completion. Is there any change in the values of our symbols? Howie remains the same, I would say. Opportunity has a far higher value than ever before with anyone. Certainly, as regards motive, she has given him cause to be very irritated with her, many times. …. So we have to put a new factor on the left side of the equation, something or someone which has changed his pattern…. Call that factor X. And I believe the right side of the equation has become less precise and less simple. There is a solution other than D, possibly. L for lunacy? Such an end result requires far more complex planning, making us even more sure of the X factor on the left.”

      “The process is stalled, short of completion.” Why not produce the patsy months ago? So are there factors we don’t know about?* It would be irresponsible not to speculate…

      And there are deadlines coming up! I just don’t see how even the Democrats can run a candidate who’s being investigated by the FBI.**

      * Perhaps in the half of the email we have not seen?

      ** Unless the X Factor is ruling class impunity, as Current Affairs argues. Has our political culture become so jaded that finding a fall guy is no longer seen as necessary?!

      1. Ishmael

        I agree totally. This has gone on for months and with approx 150 agents on it we are talking about millions in payroll. People wonder why I talk about the waste of govt. There is nothing better to do with the money. Don’t those agents have some jay walkers to catch or something, but they are FBI and tell me have you seen the FBI do anything in the last 30 years that you walk away impressed. Hell we spend tens of billions and was the FBI, CIA or NSA able to stop the Paris or Belgium attacks. What a waste or resources if no prosecution.

        This story is similar to Yellen raising interest rates!

        1. Aaron Aarons

          “[W}as the FBI, CIA or NSA able to stop the Paris or Belgium attacks”?

          Did the FBI, CIA or NSA have any motivation to stop the Paris or Belgium attacks?

    5. Jason

      Obama will pardon her post-election “for anything she might have done”, under the excuse that it’s “for the good of the nation” or some such BS. Remember, this is the guy who actively (and illegally) declined to even investigate, much less prosecute, actual god damned torture!

    6. none

      If Hillary loses, Obama can do a last minute pardon on his way out of office to keep her from being prosecuted. So she’s got it covered both ways.

  12. Bill Smith

    What is the significance of the stories that the FBI is coordinating pictures of Hillary using her devices to locate where she sent email from? I mean, isn’t that in the email headers? Or didn’t those get turned over?

    1. Jim Haygood

      Hillary’s initial document production in early 2015 was all on paper:

      In an act of semi-transparency, Hillary Clinton has handed the State Department 55,000 pages of emails for public release — but in paper, not their original electronic format.

      Trial lawyers say this is a classic “data dump.” That’s when a company fighting a lawsuit attempts to slow down opponents by drowning them in unorganized information that’s difficult to comb through.

      [E-discovery specialist Robert] Hilson noted that federal court rules require that people and companies hand over documents in their original format. If they don’t, a judge would likely slap them with sanctions. But this isn’t a trial. And it doesn’t seem like Clinton broke any laws.

      The real loss here is the extra information kept in electronic email files. Email carries extra data that shows when an email was truly sent — and who it was sent to. It could also be used to retrieve related messages. They could show whether email messages were deleted. But because those weren’t handed over, there’s no way to tell.


      Presumably the FBI now has Hillary’s emails in electronic form, with headers, from her server. But you can bet that her “legal obstruction” via data dump enraged them.

      1. Pavel

        Yes, not having the metadata along with the email texts really slows down any investigation. How many times have we heard HRC claim “I released all my work emails”? She released them in a way designed to be the least helpful for investigators, archivists, and FOIA requests.

        Of course as many have noted, the 32,000 pound elephant in the room is the “personal email” stash which was deleted by HRC. I wonder if Team Clinton know whether the FBI had restored them?

      2. fajensen

        Maybe the FBI should just ask the Russians (they are clearly not going to ask their rivals, the NSA)?

        Surely there is a recent backup of the server and in return for … this and that … it could be delivered. Not as evidence, mind, but as a dictionary of what other mails to request.

    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      Got any links on the FBI and pictures? (This, too, is an ironic twist on “Texts from Hillary,” since those were memes based on pictures of her….)

  13. John Candlish

    The post misses that there was no Inspector General for State during Hillary’s SoS tenure.

    1. divadab

      Empress Hillary – the candidate of the Imperial “Allies” – who fund her lavishly – Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States, Israel, Turkey – after all, in an empire, the satrapies and protectorates get to influence the election of the Empress, right?

  14. Brooklin Bridge

    Obama can’t endorse Clinton until this matter is resolved, because if he does so before the FBI issues the all clear, he looks like he’s dictating the outcome of an investigation.

    Obama didn’t mind calling Chelsea Manning guilty before her kangaroo trial. http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2011/04/24/vfp-press-release-obama-declares-manning-guilty-before-trial


    Nevertheless, I agree that Obama will probably not endorse Clinton formally though he has already weighed in by saying it’s time for Sanders to withdraw and let Hillary take the fight to the Republicans.

    Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors on March 11 that Sanders was nearing the point at which his campaign against Clinton would end, and that the party must soon come together to back Clinton, the New York Times reported Thursday.


      1. RUKidding


        Chelsea Manning is, in their eyes, a nobody to be squashed like a bug.

        The Clintons? Love or hate them they have power and influence. Obama’s not gonna cross that line unless absolutely necessary. PLUS Obama is somewhat implicated bc he was HRC’s boss when all this happened. Ergo, Obama treads a bit of a fine line in this mess, too.

      2. Brooklin Bridge


        Obama can’t endorse Clinton until this matter is resolved, because if he does so before the FBI issues the all clear, he looks like he’s dictating the outcome of an investigation [of a powerful player].

  15. Clive

    Technically, getting a BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) up and running isn’t too hard. Integration with a mail server suite (maybe Exchange or similar) is a little harder but not really that hideous. Then we get to the niggly stuf…

    1) the admin is a constant overhead for support (adding new users, setting the right permissions on the accounts, sorting out forgotten passwords, authorising enabled devices, deleting old accounts, defining system policies for storage, resolving issues where users go over there allowance) — it becomes a killer if you’re trying to be a one-man-band.

    2) the patching, upgrades, fixing outages, trying to keep everything backed up — this isn’t anything that demands huge skills but then you do need expertise in diligently and reliably executing a slew of routine tasks; users — especially the sorts of users we are dealing with here — do not take kindly to day-long outages

    It my experience, it simply isn’t tenable for just one guy to do all that in a timely, robust and goof-proof way. You need a team. A small team, but more than just one person (who gets sick now and again, needs a vacation, wants to not be chained to the phone 24×7).

    Either that, or the security was a pile of rubbish — lost phones not being revoked, users getting added with default access (probably too elevated), useless password policy (you get as many goes as you like). I don’t think anyone in such a tech support position with a modicum of common sense — let alone a sense of self preservation / arse covering — would leave themselves open to such a potential sh1t storm.

    So, my conclusion is that Pagliano had access to other resources — who, where, how often and doing what exactly we’re not being told right now — either on an occasional, ad-hoc basis or something a bit more organised.

    I’m sure, if I am right, the FBI are doing some digging and asking some questions.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Sounds like another candidate for my X factor, since those other “resources” would have protectors of some sort (and possibly other jobs to do? Like Nixon’s plumbers?)

      1. Clive

        I forgot to add one of the main points I wanted to include — any organisation of more than small-medium size and sophistication will have a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software

        It is beyond inconceivable that the State Dept. would fail to do so.

        Pinging highly confidential information outside the internal network to another, external one would hit every DLP tripwire there. And the traffic coming back in of a similar nature from the Clintonware (TM) server would light the intrusion detection monitoring up like a Christmas tree.

        Unless it was all turned off or deliberately ignored.

        So a fairly large number of the techies in the State department were being told (and the bureaucracy/chain of command would have had to be leaned on to facilitate this) to do a lot of things they knew they shouldn’t be doing.

        1. AnEducatedFool

          I have wondered how no one in State “knew” about Clinton’s email server. If you are a state employee you will get notified if you transfer files onto a flash drive prior to it being serviced.

          My dad brought his work laptop to get serviced. The tech guys told him that they may have to wipe the hard drive. He backed up the files and immediately received a warning from the state for transferring files to an unsecured device.

          There was no IG while Killary was SoS but someone had to have known that she was breaking the law. Perhaps they did not have the power to take this past management/higher ups but that would entail a cover up and cover ups are what kill a political career.

          Hopefully they will interview one of her aides prior to the New York primary.

        2. grayslady

          Well, as a citizen I would hope that the State Dept. has these type of safeguards in place, but I’m not sanguine, given what happened at the Office of Personnel Management. Still, I can imagine that perhaps the real value of Pagliano was his knowledge of how to beat the system. From what I’ve read, Clinton and her team were pretty much bypassing the State servers altogether, so the only real trip wire would be for downloading documents off of State’s servers–which then had their headers deleted in order to pretend that the information wasn’t classified. As Edward Snowden demonstrated, a talented sysadmin could potentially retrieve data without leaving a footprint. It all depends on what levels of privilege exist within the system and who has access to them.

    2. fajensen

      ….ust one person (who gets sick now and again, needs a vacation, wants to not be chained to the phone 24×7).
      This management problem, is often solved by the minion running VNC or some other access tool on the server itself. If the person is a little more competent than all that, there is a “jump-box” inside a “Demilitarized Zone” (DMZ) on the network. The sys-op logs into the jump-box first, then to the server (the main idea is that the jump-box sets up an encrypted connection so that the logins to the other machines cannot be seen and it’s easier to do good firewall rules and one-time passwords (OTP*) for just *one* machine).

      Of course hackers will eventually hack their way into the jump-box and then they will sniff the sysop actions from there. Will one guy see this in all the daily excitement of running an Exchange server? Probably not. In IT security it’s “one mistake and you are all done”.

      Maybe the Clinton’s mail server is already on Shodan (https://www.shodan.io/) or the appropriately-named VNC-roulette (http://vncroulette.com – screen-shots of some of the things Shodan comes up with)

      Point is: Security is indeed rubbish, as you said. At the very least, the state-sponsored hackers would be all over that system since way back, probably also some of the darker fringes of the Internet.

      This should be fun, the leaks will go on for years even after Obama pardon’s Hillary.

      *) Back in the happy days before Snowden we had actual “NSA-Key”-devices for OTP logins … ;-).

  16. sierra7

    Bill/Hillary Clinton have never been anything (going way back) to me but two true “carpet-baggers”…

  17. ChrisPacific

    The description of the Clinton Chorus of Syncophancy triggered a memory. I remember back in the 90s when she and Bill went on TV to describe her health plan. I tuned in for a while, hoping to hear some details about how it would work. No such luck. It was just a series of case study interviews of ‘ordinary’ Americans, who were having difficulties with the health care system and whose problems would all be solved by Clinton’s plan. Maybe half the air time was devoted to these people gushing about how wonderful and magnanimous the Clintons were. The other half was the Clintons basking in their adoration. Of details on how it would work, there was not a one. No wonder the voting public was suspicious.

  18. Roquentin

    Why anyone is supporting HRC over Sanders in the Democratic primary is beyond me. Honestly, at this point I kind of use it as a barometer for how well informed someone is politically, at least on the liberal/left side of things. Her support is derived almost exclusively from those for whom identity politics take precedence over everything, who also pay little to no attention to the less publicized power politics and political dealings (and even policies and legislation in general). For them, stuff like this effectively doesn’t exist. In their world and in their heads, the fact that she’s a woman trumps (no pun intended) all other concerns and people who were historically oppressed based on their identity (minorities, gays, women) are particularly susceptible to this logic. They have blinders on and either consciously or unconsciously refuse to see the tidal wave of scandal coming her way.

    1. Pat

      I have three different groups of Hillary supporters in my life.

      One is exemplified by a young woman whose family immigrated from Venzuela after Chavez became the President, and has heard the horrors of his socialistic reign from her parents, her aunts and uncles, etc. The mere mention of socialism has her shaking. these are people who were children of Venezuelans, Czechs, Yugoslavians, etc some actually lived in those countries when they under communist rule, others just grew up with the stories. It isn’t so much that they support Hillary, they just cannot support Sanders.

      Another are truly identity politics, they want a female President in their lifetime. They started discounting the accusations during the overkill of the Starr investigation and have bought the Press releases and never figured out that under twenty percent of those polled named Hillary Clinton to get her ‘most admired’ status there were so many women named.

      And then there are the Democrats. Similar to the Obamabots, they just refuse to recognize that they have been buying a pig in a poke from Bill on down every time they voted for the LOTE. The Democrats are ALWAYS the better choice, even when it is an odious toad like Rahm. Like so many of us they watched the smoke and mirrors and bought it. They remember the Clinton years as being good, but bedeviled by jealous and hateful republicans. He had NAFTA and Gramm Bliley Leach forced on him. Hillary did good things as a Senator without actually noticing that she pretty much didn’t instigate anything, just jumped on the bandwagons others built. She is a great support of women and children whose record is pretty much doing nothing but talking about her support. Every accusation is an attempt to block her from the Presidency she deserves. Obama wasn’t allowed to be his true liberal self. He was blocked. etc, etc, etc. Denial is not just a river… These are the people who just do not want to admit they got conned. Hell I was them just eight years ago, although I had a step up as I had realized during Hillary’s first Senate term that she would sell out everything and everyone to achieve her personal goals and if that meant, war, destruction of civil liberties, the end of Roe v. Wade, even the destruction of the entire middle class – so be it, I still hadn’t admitted that with few exceptions if a Democrat had even a modicum of power within the party they were all corrupt ethically free jerks. Obama woke me up, the Democrats who allowed his agenda to go through woke me up, that they provided cover for ignoring or failing on anything that actually helped their ‘base’ with excuses that didn’t pass muster woke me up. So this is the group who is aware enough to talk about voting for Bernie in the primary because Overton window etc, but have yet to rip the bandage off. It just hurts too much to realize that no the Democrats are not better, and the Clintons in particular are just as untrustworthy and unworthy as Newt and Denny and Sarah.

  19. Minnie Mouse

    One thing I do not get. Would a bogus XYZ.state.gov e-mail address have to be phonied up to cover the actual HillaryClinton.com or EVERYBODY would know and how did everybody NOT know? How many cronies are implicated here? Watergate was mostly about a coverup. P.S. TOP SECRET TPP text in there maybe?

  20. Friar Tuck

    Wait, wait, wait… Holy cow, I didn’t know that Patrick Fitzgerald had been tapped for the Clinton email investigation.

    I know Lambert made a comment about underlings taking the fall, but let us not forget, in addition to the Plame investigation, that there are a few ex-governors who are spending time behind bars thanks to Mr. Fitzgerald. Including one particular Democrat with luxurious hair and a golden opportunity.

    Patrick Fitzgerald is the last prosecutor that you want coming after you.

    1. Friar Tuck

      I guess that is of course unless I’m reading point G wrong and you’re just remarking that Comey appointed Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame affair. I can’t find any Google results remarking on Fitzgerald taking up the case.

      But I digress.

    2. grayslady

      Patrick Fitzgerald has been in private practice for a number of years now. You must have read the post incorrectly.

    3. Lambert Strether Post author

      No, he hadn’t been. What I’m saying is that Comey could be percieved as having a record of getting the toothpaste back in the tube — and looking good doing.

  21. Adam1

    LOL!!! Just had a great semi relevant experience… The doorbell rings and its an older gentleman in my community that I know is an old school progressive democrat. He’s asks if I’d sign be a signature to get Louis Slaughter on the ballet. I reply, as long as its not Hillary. He replies in a somewhat subdued but can’t control ones self fashion, “No, No that would be bad.”!!!

  22. hunterath

    I’m guessing that the classification thing is analogous to charging Al Capone with tax evasion.

  23. flora

    Hillary doesn’t have the judgement – zero, nil, zip, nada – for the job of President.

    1. optimader

      Long been a point of mine. HRC is a case study of someone that believes her own press releases.
      Bottom line, I don’t think she is particularly bright, as in able to synthesize original thoughts that are sensible let alone clever, insightful, forward looking..
      Persistent? Ohhhh yeah… Able to regurgitate stuff accurate or not? So can a Parrot, and I don’t mean to diminish Parrots.

      1. B1whois

        I remember that Elizabeth Warren was impressed with her smarts when she discussed the details of bankruptcy reform with the then first lady.

          1. ambrit

            Do you mean Wilsons’ wife who ran the government for his last years? Or the Wilson who ran on non intervention in Europes’ affairs and jettisoned all that when he was sworn in? Or perhaps the Princeton professor who appears to have had an ‘unshakeable’ faith in ‘the best and brightest?’

              1. ambrit

                Thanks “L” but the link is FUBARED. I am intrigued about ‘wilson’ being a descriptive noun though.
                (I’m going to scan the comments from the top.)

                1. ambrit

                  Ah! “Count Zero,” now I get that you do meta humour.
                  (As a silly suggestion, maybe someone with better computer skills than I can do a short video of the Bullwinkle magic hat routine with Hillary Clintons’ head coming out of the hat instead of the lion. “No doubt about it, I gotta get another hat!”)

  24. TG

    Indeed. I still think that Clinton’s unwarranted attack on and destruction of Libya – and allying with Al Qaeda! (Really! Compared to Hillary, Donald Trump is objectively moderate and cautious) – the murder of at least tens of thousands, the immiseration of countless millions, all for no apparent purpose at all – far dwarfs technical violations of security protocols (though lesser violations have resulted in severe punishments for mere mortals).

    But still: what if what was going on was not just sloppiness or laziness? What if Clinton wanted to control these email servers because they contained evidence of her selling out the national interest for personal cash? You know, what in less enlightened times would have been called treason? We will likely never know – the servers have been wiped – because they were under her control – and perhaps that was the point all along.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Amidst all the pearl-clutching about Trump, it’s easy to forget he hasn’t actually helped slaughter many tens of thousands of people. Sure, he might. But he hasn’t.

      It’s also easy to forget, amidst the cries of “Fascist!” that both parties have cooperated to set up a fascisistic infrastructure at least since 2000; the surveillance and “law enforcement” tools and enabling legislation that any man (or, I suppose, woman) on a white horse would need are all in place.

  25. Adrienne

    OK, I’m going to throw this idea out as 99.9999% improbable, but…

    What if Obama is thinking about a different sort of legacy: namely, the lives of his daughters and (someday) grandchildren? And he’s remembering the gleam in Hilz’ eye when she got an itchy trigger finger… and her support of bombing Iran & Syria back to the stone age (thanks @GoraKoska for that great link!)… and her latest speech to AIPAC… and her apparent desire to do some chest-bumping with Putin….

    …And Obama is seriously reconsidering the wisdom of having Clinton become the person with the power to obliterate all sentient life on Earth.

    (Need to read Goldberg’s interview again…)

    1. Pavel

      Adrienne– a boy (or girl) can dream…
      One would like to think that these rulers would think of their children and grandchildren; their actions don’t usually indicate that they do so. All very strange, and tragic. Just look at all the climate change deniers: what sort of future do they intend for their children?

      1. B1whois

        My guess is that they intend to import their Consciousness into machines and thereby avoid climate disaster.

          1. ambrit

            I’d love to see how those Rayndians set up anything on Mars without a fully functional economy here down on Earth.
            The ‘proles’ here could easily do a Metaluna and shower Mars with guided asteroids. This Island Earth was an entirely appropriate name for the film.

            1. fajensen

              Hmm – sounds like a plan. Kind of like Cyril M. Kornbluth, The Marching Morons.

              The Ayn Randians gets to go to Mars and establish the perfect society free of evil government oppression (and climate change). Some really glossy prospectus material and radiant testimony from people who already left could, perhaps, even persuade them to pay for the trip.

              Otherwise, it would be worth a kickstarter. Just to thin the numbers.

    2. Waldenpond

      I guess am I naive, but I don’t see how any of those issues impact his children. They will never fight in those wars, nor likely know anyone who will. They are and will always be the top 1%. It seems to me we are already in the middle of world war III… many countries at war, troops involved, $$$ weapons contracts. It just doesn’t seem to phase people. Obama doesn’t seem to be driven by any moral system, just dealing and situating himself for the grift.

  26. ian

    Why haven’t more people commented on the fact that, possible illegality aside, Clinton demonstrated astoundingly poor judgement in setting up the private email? That, in itself, is a deal-breaker for me.

  27. Cry Shop

    Another point to consider for the list: Clinton wants un-encrypted phones, etc, ie: no protection from prying by the government into private issues, but is unwilling to turn over her own private emails/conversations to the government. Yet another double standard.

    Historical quiry: Isn’t it interesting that it is Clinton, and not some other party, that gets to decide what is “private” and what isn’t. Other than what the presidents do to control access to the material they remove from the administrative record by building in their private “libraries” (and hence the extra-ordinary lengths they go to raise funds and build them), is there any other public high level federal official who got to make that call when mixing public and private emails?

  28. Indrid Cold

    The thing that got me right away was the Blackberry thing. People who know what they’re talking about told her not to use it and she said she understood and went ahead and merrily used it anyway. That’s really sociopathy- that ‘catch me if you can’ disregard for rules lesser beings have to follow.

  29. cwaltz

    5. Clinton was told early on she should not (nor should any government employee) use her private Blackberry for State business. She was warned it could be hacked into and used as a listening device. She said she understood. She nevertheless continued using it throughout her tenure at home and abroad.

    This alone should be enough to consider criminal intent. She WILLFULLY disregarded the security risk.

  30. Adam1

    I was just thinking about this on the way into work this AM. What if Obama knows that the FBI has or will soon have enough to indicted her on? The party establishment obviously doesn’t want Sanders on the ticket, so Obama gets them to delay until after the convention. At that point the party chiefs get to select the candidate.

  31. sumiDreamer

    I could spend a few hours deconstructing the comments as I called FOUL! the minute this started – Bernie being nice about it and people believing she’ll NATURALLY get off notwithstanding I’ve compiled a fat dossier.

    But just a few things for now:
    1. The role of Guciffer as being the one who outted the private server is getting precious little play. He sits rotting in jail. He proved how easy it was to hack her and the staffer who ALSO had emails running through the server.

    2. The person who is going to be hit over the head with this is Patrick Kennedy because the BUCK stops at HIS desk.

    3. We all owe a huge debt to Jason Leopold who had the sense (and cunning) to ask for the emails under FOIA. The shortcomings of that system are all coming to light, as are the practices of The National Archives.

    4. I don’t think it was mentioned in the comments but it was diGenova that prosecuted Jonathan Pollard and he knows more than a bit about treason charges. He doesn’t think felony charges will be filed (afterall the players are being treated with kid gloves – no night raids, no mass confiscations, etc) BUT he surely has factored how serious the breach of national security this “routine” of Hillary and her courtiers really was. I ran this by my most illustrious lawyer friend (an ex DC type) and he said diGenova has his ducks in a row, basically. She is already guilty of negligence, at a minimum.

    5. Yes, Judicial Watch is right wing, but so what. People who are genuinely interested should check out their website and get the newsletter updates. This is not going to be swept under the rug, you can count on that. Below is a link to a livestream video on this that they have done. The Judge they’ve drawn is most concerned about the PUBLIC INTEREST in all of this.

    6. Why did Tyler Drumheller suddenly up and die before testifying?? This all relates to things the Wapo is conveniently failing to mention: Teneo, Osprey Global Solutions, Uranium One and the other players in the influence peddling and intel “factors.” (which is why you can bet NSA is doing ongoing investigations, not just the 147 FBI agents. All those things will take much longer and more work to “sort out” in days ahead.

    I don’t think any of us can really speculate on the political fall out that is going to occur. But the “we’re going to be transparent” crap is going to be exposed for its fraudulent intent and/OR heads are going to roll. The Wapo is finally waking up. I will bet any takers that by this fall Teneo will be a household word that your grandmother recognizes.

    This is longish but riveting: http://www.judicialwatch.org/live/ Jason, DiGenova and two from Judicial Watch on what is known up to now (and a few comments on leaks, DC culture, etc.)

  32. Larry Kummer

    This shows that Hillary Clinton is is the natural evolution of US presidential power since WWII, the logical next step from Bush Jr.

    Eminent German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck describes PM Merkel as acting in much the same way — but of course as PM the scale is much larger. It’s worth reading to see what we can expect from HC as president.

  33. Russell Scott Day/Founder of Transcendia

    Thanks for the list. There are many of them. If Secretary Clinton doesn’t care about national secrets, she won’t care much for ours, yours.
    The way the Clintons have used Haiti, and where the Haitians always end up used and abused, to me pretty well illustrates their real unabridged characteristics and operating procedures.
    Standing in the right place for the optics, they take telephone calls, and get booked to speak for big money. The benefits flow their way.
    Wreckage is left in their trail. An apology is made now and then. Everybody pays. They do all right.

  34. Michael C

    What’s missing from most accounts of the controversy is Clinton’s motivation for using a private server. It wasn’t a stupid mistake. It was deliberate. I suspect it was so that she would have immediate and unimpeded access to these emails when she retired from State and wrote her memoirs of the period. If State had controlled the email store, she probably wouldn’t have gotten access for many months if not years, and the emails would be censored.

    I do not offer this as a justification for her actions. On the contrary, it makes her look even more self-centered.

  35. Aaron Aarons

    I can’t see why any opponent of the U.S. Empire would be even pretend to be upset over Clinton’s putting ‘classified’ material , i.e., evidence of imperialist criminality, on an insecure server. It is legitimate, however, to object to her using such a private server to block FOIA requests for such documents. The main thing we on the left should be doing in this regard is demanding the release of documents that haven’t been released so far and publicizing the most revealing contents of those that have. We shouldn’t get diverted by the debates about the Empire’s security, which it would be hypocritical to pretend we care about.

Comments are closed.