Since these threads are so much fun, just how long do you think it is appropriate for HRC to not address the email issue?
Is she waiting to let the Republicans go all in before responding? That is doubtful, since she already has her lawyers on the job:
But Clinton attorney David Kendall told the Select Committee in a statement Wednesday that she only used one email account while secretary of state, then switched to a new one after stepping down.
“Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from Department officials to friends to family. A month after she left the Department, Gawker published her email address and so she changed the address on her account,” Kendall said.
“At the time the emails were provided to the Department last year this new address appeared on the copies as the ‘sender,’ and not the address she used as Secretary. This address on the account did not exist until March 2103 [sic], after her tenure as Secretary,” he continued.
House Benghazi committee spokesman Jamal Ware responded by confirming that the committee has “records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State. “
“Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which was reportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the Committee uncovered two email addresses,” Ware added.
At the White House Wednesday and Tuesday, Press Secretary Josh Earnest stopped short of saying definitively that Clinton had not violated federal records, but said it appeared she was in compliance. “If they did what they said they did,” he told reporters, “That would be consistent with the Federal Records Act.”
Is she just letting this soak up all the oxygen so the foreign donors/Clinton foundation brouhaha dies down?
With assets approaching $226 million, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation plays a prominent role in international development. It has battled HIV/AIDS, provided relief after tsunamis and earthquakes and helped farmers and entrepreneurs in developing countries.
“And we believe that together we can find solutions to the most daunting human challenges,” says the narrator in a promotional video for the foundation. “This is what we do. This is who we are. This is the Clinton Foundation.”
But another passage in the video oddly foreshadows a current controversy.
“We are entrepreneurs in human potential,” the video says. “We reject artificial boundaries between business, government and nonprofits.”
The Clinton Foundation eased those boundaries and has taken contributions, of $1 million to $10 million, from the governments of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi Arabian government has given as much as $25 million.
Those funds, and other huge gifts, have drawn scrutiny of Hillary Clinton and the foundation, as she moves closer to declaring — or perhaps declining — a bid for the White House.
Does she just not have an answer that she deems acceptable at the moment, or are they trying to figure out how to prove they did nothing nefarious?
Or are they already in bunker mentality, having gone through this for 30 years? One thing is for sure, they’ve reached into the asshole factory where they breed the Hillary diehards, and they are coming out swinging:
From: Philippe Reines
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:57 PM
To: CJ Ciaramella, Keenan Trotter, Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter
Cc: Nick Merrill
Hi CJ. And hi JK.
Since this fundamentally comes down to honesty, transparency and accountability, I thought we’d go through an exercise together—with Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and Brian Stelter of CNN included as observers.
In your piece, which CJ references below, you wrote:
“‘Her top staffers used those Clinton email addresses’ at the agency, said the source, who has worked with Clinton in the past. The source named two staffers in particular, Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, who are said to have used private email addresses in the course of their agency duties.”
That’s a pretty clear assertion by you through your source that they had firsthand knowledge of my having and using an email account on the clintonemail.com domain. You then wrote:
“We were able to independantly [SIC] [Ed. note: This word was never misspelled in the original article] verify that Abedin used a ClintonEmail.com address at some point in time. There are several email addresses associated with Abedin’s name in records maintained by Lexis-Nexis; one of them is firstname.lastname@example.org. An email sent to that address today went through without bouncing.”
A few questions:
1) Did you attempt to verify your source’s assertion of my use of such an email using the same creepy methods you did with my close friend and colleague Huma Abedin? Assuming you did, why doesn’t your piece note the results of your creepy methods?
2) Did you attempt to send an email to me at that domain, and if so did it go “through without bouncing”? Assuming you did, why don’t you note the results of your test?
3) If your lying liar pants on fire source worked with me at a federal agency as you and they contend, did you ask them to provide even a single email exchange with my using that account?
4) Better yet, in the off chance they don’t have every single email they ever sent or received, have you availed yourself of the same FOIA laws to petition the lying liar’s agency for any email between them and me that you have with our email?
I mean, you either naively or knowingly swallowed quite the whopper. Not sure which is worse. Actually, that’s not true.
They live for this shit.
Again, I am going to support HRC if she is the candidate, but I am just not in the mood to deal with this crap for the next decade. Just the constant drama, the wiggling up to the line of appropriateness and then having all out wars, etc. Clinton gets unfairly attacked for a lot of things, but criminy it seems like she brings it on herself.
And again, if you can not figure out why it is problematic for a Secretary of State to keep all her emails private and then have unnamed aides decide which ones to turn over while saying “trust us,” this is going to fall on deaf ears. If the Republicans did this, we’d all be freaking out. In fact, we did, before Clinton was even Secretary of State. Benghazi is a nothingburger that flamed out, and now this issue has dumped a barrel of kerosene on it. And while I don’t think there is anything incriminating on this issue in her emails, the wingnuts are right to demand access and point out this is a crazy way to do business.
This is usually where someone chimes in about Colin Powell, which is a ridiculous defense, because Colin Powell was not the Secretary of State after the archiving regulations were put in place. So don’t bother.
And no, it isn’t right that when Republicans do this, the media yawns. But reality is reality- unfair as it may be, the media treats the Clintons differently. You can rant and rave about it, but here in the reality, you deal with the landscape as it is, not as you want it to be. Not to mention, making it so the media can’t have access to legitimate FOIA requests because of things like this is no way to alter that hostile landscape. Nor is having folks like Philippe picking fights with every reporter on the planet when all many of them are doing is asking legitimate questions.
This Chris Hayes piece is well worth your time as a primer for what we are in for should Hillary run:
Meanwhile, Jon Stewart is skewering Clinton. This is not going away.
Can Obama run again in 2016?
*** Update ***
Ask, and it shall be delivered: