Thread: Hillary in 2016 ?

Gowdy Scorches Hillary! You Won’t Believe Her Lame Excuse for Missing Emails

During a press conference yesterday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that she set up a private e-mail account and server during her tenure at the State Department because she didn’t want to carry two separate devices around – one for work e-mails and one for private.

“I opted for convenience,” she said.

This question immediately arises – Wouldn’t it be more convenient to keep both e-mail accounts on one phone?

In response to Clinton’s mea culpa, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, spoke to Fox’s Greta Van Susteren last night, mocking the aspiring presidential candidate for being technologically incompetent.

Gowdy told viewers that he’d be more than happy “to show her how to put two email accounts on one phone.”

“Even I managed to figure out how to do that,” he quipped.

Gowdy also took a shot at the destruction of personal e-mails, something Clinton confessed to doing, but citing them as nothing more than communications about family vacations or “yoga routines.”

“I have no interest in her yoga routine,” Gowdy shot back. “Trust me, I have no interest in that.”

Watch Gowdy’s interview … http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/g...#ixzz3UJmSYna3

comments

She thinks the people are as stupid as she really is. No one needs 2 phones to access different email accounts and she could have used her phone to access the gov’t account via VPN for security.

Hillary Clinton’s Enemy No. 1
Meet Trey Gowdy, the would-be president's reluctant nemesis.
By MICHAEL HIRSH
March 12, 2015

t’s late Wednesday afternoon, the day after Hillary Clinton’s defiant I’m-telling-you-this-and-nothing-more news conference at the United Nations and Trey Gowdy — who’s now seen as her No. 1 antagonist on Benghazi — is all over the news up in Washington. But this is the middle of South Carolina, Gowdy’s home district, and the two-term congressman pulls into a Cracker Barrel on State Highway 183 — where I’m waiting to meet him — alone at the wheel of a filthy silver Toyota Corolla. Gowdy gets out, hands me the keys and drawls, “Car’s over there. Got to go to the men’s room.” Inside the Corolla, crud from some ancient condiment spill has permanently affixed itself to the gear-shift console, and a thick layer of dust covers the dash. Stuffed into the passenger back seat pocket is a battered loose-leaf notebook labeled “Benghazi ARB”—which, when I point it out to him, Gowdy leafs through as if he’s discovering a long-lost document. “Oh yeah, this was our hearing on the Accountability Review Board,” he says. “Forgot it was there.”



The day before, Gowdy had made all the right Washington moves. Clinton had barely stepped away from the microphone before Gowdy’s office released a statement, chiding the insufficiency of her answers, demanding Clinton turn over the personal computer server and promising to require her to “appear at least twice” before Gowdy’s committee. A few hundred miles and a news cycle away from the capital, maneuvering the car onto the rainy highway, bound for a lecture at Clemson University, the voluble and relaxed former prosecutor sounds less like the Grand Inquisitor and more like the fair-minded judge that he has long aspired to be.

Contrary to all rumor and innuendo, Gowdy says he is completely open to the idea that Clinton may have done nothing wrong while secretary of state. He has publicly pointed out “gaps” that go for “months" in the materials she has provided on Benghazi. But he insists he’s not accusing her of anything; he just doesn’t know yet, he says.



Short and whippet thin, with close-cropped graying hair that looks as if it’s hand-combed, Gowdy has a sharp-angled, crudely handsome face; at times he resembles the quick-silver Terminator II guy who beat up on Arnold Schwarzenegger. But Gowdy doesn’t see a similarly relentless pursuit of Hillary as his mission.

Taking on Clinton, Gowdy repeats, “is not my job. That’s the job of the RNC, and the Republican candidate for president. … If they hired me for that job they hired the wrong guy. Why would you hire a not-even-two-term guy, all of whose training tells him to go where facts take him, who doesn’t even go to NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] dinners, who’s lousy at fundraisers, who hates to travel? Because that’s who you’re getting.”

The job he was appointed to do last year by House Speaker John Boehner was to chair a special investigatory committee on Benghazi after the Republican right roared its disapproval of previous failed inquiries. What does he know right now, I ask him, based on numerous witness appearances and 850 pages already submitted by the State Department?

Not all that much. He says he’s “seen no evidence” that Clinton ordered a stand-down of security forces in Benghazi, contributing to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11, 2012 , or any of the other more damning things the right typically alleges.

And if anyone expects him to chase the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination to the gates of political hell to get tens of thousands of her personal emails, well, don’t bank on it. Right now, Gowdy wants an independent arbitrator to decide whether those 30,000 or so emails contain anything significant material to his probe, and he says he’d even accept a respected Democratic professional like Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz for that task. But when I point out that another committee he serves on recently accepted a high-level witness’s mere “certification” or a personal oath that his submitted emails were complete, Gowdy says a similar compromise might be possible with Clinton.

“That may be the best we can get. If you can’t get what you think is your reasonable alternative, because you’re dealing with the limitations of the legislative branch. What is your power to dictate otherwise? Public pressure maybe. But beyond that what can you do?”

***

People who know Gowdy well wouldn’t be surprised to hear him talk this way.

A Christian conservative elected in the tea party wave of 2010, Gowdy is a believer all right — but not in what many of his fellow Republicans would consider the “cause,” namely preventing, by any means necessary, the title President from appearing in front of Hillary’s name. He has little interest in becoming a latter-day Kenneth Starr. He has no visceral hatred of the Clintons, he says.

“I never would have become a prosecutor except for Bill Clinton,” Gowdy remarks casually, explaining that it was only when Clinton became president in 1993 that he got the job he’d long wanted, federal prosecutor in South Carolina, which had been denied him under George H.W. Bush.

When I joke that perhaps he should recuse himself from the Benghazi investigation for his pro-Clinton bias, he laughs. “She really is going to be, I don’t want to say a small part — I don’t know — but she is by no means the central focus of our inquiry. … John Boehner didn’t even mention her name when he asked me to do this. There are a million other things to pursue with respect to Benghazi other than Secretary Clinton.”

By the account of many friends and associates, it’s the law, not partisan politics, that Gowdy reveres. Gowdy himself says he’d much rather be a judge or even a law professor than a member of Congress, a place, he admits to me, that he’s come to hate. The House, Gowdy says, has become little more than as a venue for permanent political warfare, unrelieved by action. According to Dave Woodard, Gowdy’s political mentor in Spartanburg and the man who launched his career: “He said to me not long ago, ‘I thought I was doing more for America by putting bad guys in jail than hitting my head against a wall with 435 morons.’”

Mick Mulvaney, Gowdy’s friend and fellow member of the close-knit South Carolina congressional caucus, says selecting the 50-year-old Gowdy was a big risk for Boehner, who remains on permanently thin ice with his right-wing base.

“I think he’s more well-suited to be judge than a politician, which is why he was a great choice on one hand, but also a very dangerous choice for Boehner,” says Mulvaney. “He’s brutally fair, and brutally honest, and brutally transparent. While everyone assumes he’ll find something on Benghazi, it’s entirely plausible that he finds no wrongdoing, and if he does there are going to be some Republicans who are not happy with that finding.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3UJp0CfCN



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3UJopisZd

Originally Posted by boopster

next one might show her being thrown under a bus by this administration because verbally they have already started

The State Department just accused Hillary Clinton of lying?
State Department Did Not Auto Archive Hillary Clinton Emails
By Kathryn Schroeder, Sat, March 14, 2015

Hillary Clinton stated during a press conference last week that emails sent from her private email address while she served as Secretary of State were “immediately” saved. New information revealed from the State Department alleges that this is an untrue statement.

Clinton gave the press conference on Tuesday to respond to the recently uncovered fact that she used a personal email account and server when she was Secretary of State, Opposing Views previously reported. Clinton released some of the emails sent from her personal email address to The Select Committee On Benghazi as part of their investigation. Some 30,000 emails were deleted and not shared because Clinton said they were personal.

"And when I got there, I wanted to just use one device for both personal and work e-mails, instead of two," Clinton said at the press conference. "It was allowed. And as I said, it was for convenience. And it was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record-keeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened.”

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said Friday that the department did not start automatically archiving emails from senior officials until February of this year, reports FOX News. "They have long been planning to do this. It's just something that it took some time to put in place," Psaki said.

Prior to February 2015, senior officials were personally responsible for choosing their own official records for preservation. “Obviously, this [automatic archiving] is a more efficient way — a way that will require less human effort….We have quite a bit going on here at the State Department,” Psaki said. “There were ways to preserve [emails] and employees and individuals were expected to do that prior to this new process.”

An inspector general report released earlier this week noted that archiving was not happening on a regular basis.

According to the report, in 2011, employees created just “61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent.” Fewer were created in 2013.

The report said some employees were not preserving emails "because they do not want to make the email available in searches or fear that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions."

Psaki said information that was not saved may be recoverable, reports Politico. “I wouldn’t state it’s ‘lost to history’ because there are technical means of gaining access to past information,” Psaki said. “I’m not an expert on the technical capabilities.”

Questions have now been raised as to why Clinton thought her emails were being preserved just because they were sent to a “.gov” address. “She spoke as if she could just roll along with the firm expectation and belief that at least the ‘vast majority’ were being ‘handled’ in that way. From whence did that come? That’s the question that arises now.” said former Justice Department Office of Information and Privacy Director Dan Metcalfe. “What was her foundation for even that? Did someone incorrectly tell her that that was happening, or did she incorrectly make such a self-serving assumption?”

Psaki suggested that there may have been confusion among some State Department employees about what was and was not being automatically saved. “I assume some assumed that was happening at the time as well,” Psaki said. “We’re updating it because it’s an imperfect system."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/state-department-did-not-auto-archive-hillary-clinton-emails

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
By Edward Klein - March 14, 2015 | 9:33pm



It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me. But she did so through people outside the *administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been *going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.

Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious. “My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”

Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”

The sabotage is part of an *ongoing feud between the two Democrat powerhouses.

Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.

Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.

And she vowed payback.

My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced after years of living in obscurity. Jarrett discreetly put out word to some friendly members of the press that the White House would look with favor if they gave Monica some ink and airtime.

Relations have gotten even frostier in the past few months.

After the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterms, the White House scheduled a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When she showed up in the Oval Office, she was greeted by three people — the president, Jarrett and Michelle Obama.

With his wife and Jarrett looking on, Obama made it clear that he intended to stay neutral in the presidential primary process — a clear signal that he wouldn’t mind if someone challenged Hillary for the nomination.

“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”

If she gets into the White House, they believe she will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and undo Obama’s legacy.

“With Obama’s approval,” this source continued, “Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination.”

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-a...-mail-scandal/

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-a...-mail-scandal/

NYT Reporter Threatened With a List of 11 Words That Are Too ‘Sexist’ To Describe Hillary
By Victoria Taft - 17 hours ago

New York Times political reporter claims she’s been threatened by a Hillary Clinton volunteer group if she uses a list of words the group deems ‘coded sexism’ to describe Clinton in her news stories.

In some ways, the demand seems like a cross between comedian George Carlin’s famous riff on the ‘7 Words You Can’t Say on TV’ and George Orwell’s Newspeak, referred to in 1984.

Here are the words the group says can’t be used to describe Clinton:
•Ambitious
•Calculating
•Disingenuous
•Entitled
•Insincere
•Out of Touch
•Over Confident
•Polarizing
•Represent the Past
•Secretive
•Will Do Anything to Win

The group making the demands of the New York Times reporter, ‘HRC Super Volunteers,’ has been around for a few years as a Google group.

Of course, these words have been used to describe any number of politicians. For instance, The New York Times ran a story on Cruz with one of the Clinton ‘no-go’ words:



https://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/281...paign=Politics