Hildabeast didnt have a government email

Search

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Another case of do as I say not as I do.

A cable from the State Department in 2011 shows "that that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons -- while at the same time, Clinton conducted all government business on a private account." The cable was obtained by Fox News.

The cable was sent to consular and diplomatic staff and bears Clinton's electronic signature. The message says to:

"avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts." The message also said employees should not "auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
6 questions that still need answers in the Hillary e-mail controversy

By Chris Cillizza March 6 at 4:29 PM


Hillary Clinton's decision to exclusively use a private e-mail address -- and set up her own server at her house to do so -- during her time as the nation's leading diplomat has dominated news coverage this week. And yet, for all the great reporting that's been done, there are lots of questions that remain to be answered -- either by journalists looking into the matter or, less likely, by Clinton herself.
I put my head together with a few other reporters on The Post's national political staff -- Roz Helderman, among others -- to brainstorm a list of questions that Clinton and her team either haven't answered entirely -- or at all. Our list is below. What did we miss?

1. Why did Clinton set this e-mail system up?
This is the biggie. Put aside the fact that other secretaries of state -- COLIN POWELL! -- have maintained a private e-mail address, no one has exclusively used such a setup. So, why did Clinton -- particular given that she had to know that it might become an issue if/when she ran for president in 2016? (No, Clinton wasn't thinking about 2016 at the start of 2009, but by the middle of her term, it was quite clear another run for president was a real possibility.)
Did she simply want to have as much control over her e-mail correspondence as possible? If so, why? Was there any political motivation in her decision, perhaps to shield some of her communication from Republicans? Did she consider a private e-mail server more secure from hacking than the government one? If so, who advised her that way? Those are all questions no one but Clinton can answer. But it's not clear she has any plans to do so.

2. How many total e-mails did Clinton send from her private e-mail account during her four years at State?
Clintonworld has shipped 55,000 pages of e-mails to the State Department. That much we know. What we don't know is how many more pages of e-mails exist. Here's what we do know, from a WaPo story on Thursday:
Of the e-mails that were turned over to State, the Clinton aide said, 90 percent were correspondence between Clinton and agency employees using their regular government e-mail accounts, which end in state.gov.
The remaining 10 percent were communications between Clinton and other government officials, including some at the White House, along with an unknown number of people “not on a government server,” the aide said.
That doesn't, of course, answer the more basic question. Is 55,000 the totality of the e-mails Clinton sent? Half? A third? Obviously, if it's 95 percent, that's something very different than if it's 35 percent.

3. What did Clinton mean with her tweet?
On Wednesday night, Clinton tweeted this:

But did she mean that she wants State to release the 55,000 pages she sent to State? Or all of her e-mails? If it's the latter, the burden of releasing them rests with Clinton, not the State Department. And, to reiterate question #3, just how many e-mails she sent does State not have?

4. Who was in charge of deciding which e-mails Clinton sent to State for archiving?
This is another critically important question. What we know is that someone (or someones) in Clinton's orbit went through the e-mails to decide which ones should be shipped to State. The supposed standard for withholding e-mails was that they were "personal." But, without knowing who was in charge of this selection process and what criteria they used to decide what constituted a personal e-mail, it's impossible to truly get to the bottom of what State has or, more importantly, should have.

5. Did anyone at State or the White House raise a worry about Clinton's exclusive use of the private e-mail system?
This from Edward Isaac-Dovere's piece at Politico today:
The White House, State Department and Hillary Clinton’s personal office knew in August that House Republicans had received information showing that the former secretary of state conducted official government business through her private email account — and Clinton’s staff made the decision to keep quiet.
Sources familiar with the discussions say key people in the Obama administration and on Clinton’s staff were aware that the revelation could be explosive for the all-but-announced candidate for president. But those involved deferred to Clinton’s aides, and they decided not to respond.
The larger question is did anyone -- at the State Department or the White House -- not raise a red flag earlier about her e-mail being a problem before it became clear that said information had fallen into the hands of Republican congressional investigators? If someone did, what was Clinton's response -- or did the matter never get all the way to her? If no one raised an alarm, why not?

6. How do we know there was no classified material in those e-mails? What about "sensitive" material and, if they did include "sensitive" material, did her e-mail system meet State Department security requirements for the exchange of such information?
Here's what we know about what was in the e-mails Clinton sent, via the New York Times:
While the State Department has said there does not appear to be any classified material in Mrs. Clinton’s emails, officials said on Thursday that they needed to go through the trove again to determine whether it contained any “sensitive” information.
Sensitive information is different from classified information. It can be personal data, like Social Security numbers, or information on matters that other countries consider classified or important to their national security.
So there "does not appear" to be any classified information contained therein, but it remains to be seen if there was "sensitive" information. That sounds like the State Department is giving itself lots of wiggle room. It may turn out that there was no classified or even "sensitive" information transmitted but it's quite clear that we -- and State -- don't know that yet. And, since we don't know that, we also don't know if there was ever a conversation between Clinton and State Department officials about how and whether she could send this sort of information via a private e-mail server.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Hillary Clinton, too cautious for her own good[/h]

By Dana Milbank Opinion writer March 6 at 12:02 PM


So it turns out Hillary Clinton will face a serious challenger in the primaries, after all. Her name is Hillary Clinton.
This week’s revelation that she used only private e-mail to conduct her public business as secretary of state is not a knockout blow to the likely Democratic presidential nominee; she has weathered worse. But it is a needless, self-inflicted wound, and it stems from the same flaws that have caused Clinton trouble in the past — terminal caution and its cousin, obsessive secrecy.

In trying so hard to avoid mistakes — in this case, trying to make sure an embarrassing e-mail or two didn’t become public — Clinton made a whopper of an error. What’s troubling is that she’s been making a variation of this mistake for nearly a quarter-century.

During her husband’s 1992 presidential campaign, she resisted releasing records about the Whitewater land deal. In 1993, she opposed White House adviser David Gergen’s recommendation that she turn over all records. Her Rose Law Firm billing records were mysteriously lost for two years and then turned up in the White House residence.
Her resistance to divulging information caused the Whitewater scandal to drag on — and the resulting independent-counsel investigation metastasized into an all-purpose probe that eventually exposed the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Likewise, her doomed 1993 health-care task force needlessly gave critics of the policy an opening with its reflexive secrecy; the task force wouldn’t even provide the names of all the consultants it brought in for advice.
Clinton justifiably criticized George W. Bush’s administration in 2007 for its “secret White House e-mail accounts” — but then she became a key figure in an administration that, in its zeal to limit disclosure, pursued more leak cases under the 1917 Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. The administration’s efforts to conceal its eavesdropping programs — including false testimony to Congress by the director of national intelligence — ultimately backfired by leading to Edward Snowden’s reckless dump of government secrets.
The Obama administration, and Clinton’s State Department, wound up giving ammunition to congressional probes into the Benghazi attacks, when they kept from congressional investigators a damning 2012 State Department e-mail about administration talking points following the attack. The withheld e-mail, when released later, made it look as if the administration had something to hide.
This is exactly the appearance created by this week’s revelation that Clinton had been exclusively using personal e-mail during her time as the nation’s top diplomat. Her “clintonemail.com” domain is an unfortunate echo of 2007, when Bush administration officials were discovered to have conducted official business using the “gwb43.com” domain. Clinton clearly violated administration protocol, and she ran afoul of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Records Act. (Since last year’s amendments to the act, Clinton’s actions would, if taken today, be plainly illegal.)

“It’s the kind of step that arouses suspicion, even if it does not violate the letter of the law,” says Steven Aftergood, a specialist in government secrecy with the Federation of American Scientists. He suggests Clinton could clean up the mess by inviting in officials from the National Archives to examine her private e-mail server to confirm that all official e-mails have been transferred to the government’s possession.

That would be a good start, but the reflexive secrecy is a symptom of Clinton’s broader problem, which is her debilitating caution. Just as her determination to avoid embarrassing disclosure leads to much bigger problems with secrecy, her efforts to avoid mistakes on the campaign trail make her a plodding and lifeless candidate. Her unimaginative, play-it-safe 2008 campaign left an opening for Barack Obama.

Clinton’s response so far to the e-mail controversy has been emblematic of that caution: She’s limited herself to a tweet saying that she asked the State Department to release her e-mails.
There is very little standing between Clinton and the presidency, and that no doubt reinforces her instinctive caution and confidentiality. But the biggest mistake she can make is being afraid to make one.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,640
Tokens
11035610_936555556363885_5423684638541056822_n.jpg
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Hillary’s Secret Email Was a Cyberspy’s Dream Weapon[/h]When a notorious online break-in artist got a hold of the Secretary of State’s now-infamous email address, he gave himself the power to use it to target the global elite.
The private email address for Hillary Clinton, which became the talk of Washington this week and created her first major speed bump on her road to the White House, has actually been freely available on the Internet for a year, thanks to a colorful Romanian hacker known as Guccifer.
On March 14, 2013, Guccifer—his real name is Marcel-Lehel Lazar—broke into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a journalist, former White House aide to Bill Clinton, and personal confidante of Hillary Clinton. Lazar crowed about his exploits to journalists, disclosing a set of memos Blumenthal had written to Clinton in 2012, as well as the personal email address and domain she’s now known to have used exclusively for her personal and official correspondence.
Few journalists noticed that at the time, and it caused no ruckus in Washington. But the fact that Clinton’s private email was now public means she was not just putting her own information at risk, but potentially those in the circle of people who knew her private address.
Her email account was the ultimate hacker’s lure. It’s a common technique to impersonate a trusted source via email, in order to persuade a recipient to download spyware hidden inside seemingly innocuous attachments. Indeed, Clinton’s own staff had been targeted with such highly targeted “spear phishing” emails as early as 2009, the year she took office. And according to U.S. authorities, Lazar, who’s now serving a seven-year prison sentence in Romania and is accused of hacking the accounts of other Washington notables like Colin Powell, did commandeer other people’s email accounts. Then he used them to send messages exposing the private correspondence of his other victims.
When her address was exposed, Clinton was running her private email account on equipment in her home in New York, which security experts say is an inherently weak setup that made her more vulnerable to hacking.

It’s not clear whether Lazar tried to hack Clinton’s domain or if he used his access to Blumenthal’s account to do so. But he was within digital striking distance of the secretary, inside the email of a Clinton ally who, as one longtime Blumenthal friend told The Daily Beast, is “a blooded member of Hillaryland, perhaps the personification of that corps who are closest to her inner circle.”
Blumenthal sent Clinton a range of missives covering topics such as U.S.-Egyptian relations to how she was recovering from a concussion. Once he was inside Blumenthal’s account, Lazar could have easily “spear phished” this most senior member of President Obama’s cabinet.
Had security experts checked the system, they might not have liked what they saw. One security scan this week revealed that Hillary’s domain uses “obsolete and insecure” protocols and gave it an overall F rating.


Blumenthal still maintains the once-hacked AOL account. Requests for comment sent there weren’t returned.
Before Lazar exposed the email domain, it would have been known to people with whom Clinton was trading emails, as well as to a tight inner circle lucky enough to be given @clintonemail.com accounts. Those included Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, and aide Huma Abedin, whom the former secretary treats like family. Maybe Clinton and her staff thought the relative anonymity of her email domain would have given her a measure of security. It’s hard to say, since they and State Department officials have consistently refused to answer journalists questions about what security measures Clinton took to protect her “homebrew” email system.

But “assuming that the domain is ‘secret’ is a dangerous assumption,” Johannes Ullrich, a computer security expert with the SANS Institute, told The Daily Beast.
“A not-well-published domain does not provide significant protection,” Ullrich said. “As seen in the Guccifer incident, it is easy to unmask such domains if just one of the individuals she is corresponding with is breached. At the same note, running a mail server securely is difficult.”
Ullrich said that because email servers communicate with many different outside systems, “e-mail is probably the most dangerous attack vector” that a hacker could use. The fact that Lazar had exposed her private account a year ago suggests that Clinton could have taken steps at the time to better protect herself. Whether she did or not, her aides aren’t saying.
“We have no indication the account was hacked or compromised,” a senior State Department official told The Daily Beast. But unless State inspected the system, officials have no way of knowing that. By the department’s own admission, officials didn’t contact Clinton about turning over emails on her account until October 2014, nearly two years after she’d left office, when the law on official records was being changed to cover emails sent on private accounts.
Had security experts checked the system, they might not have liked what they saw. One security scan this week revealed that the domain uses “obsolete and insecure” protocols and gave it an overall F rating.
The only Blumenthal emails Lazar is known to have disclosed, within days of hacking the account, were four memos from September 2012, marked “classified,” and containing what Blumenthal described as on-the-ground intelligence about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The disclosure tipped off Blumenthal to the breach, allowing him to change the password on his account and regain control.
Perhaps fortunately for Clinton, Lazar was more interested in snooping than spying. That may explain why he may have passed on a golden opportunity to get inside Clinton’s email account, as well. He’s “just a smart guy who was very patient and persistent” and who “wanted to be famous” for showing that he could embarrass Washington power brokers and other celebrities, a Romanian prosecutor told the New York Times, which published a profile of Lazar last year. Among the purloined correspondence he disclosed were emails between Powell and a Romanian diplomat, which were so intimate that Powell had to publicly declare the woman was just a friend and nothing more.
In an interview with the the Times, the imprisoned hacker rambled about “a potpourri of conspiracy theories” he tied to the so-called Illuminati, whom he described as the “very rich people, noble families, bankers and industrialists from the 19th and 20th century” that he said run the world, are responsible for the death of Princess Diana and the 9/11 attacks, and whose email the world deserves to see.
He now seems hardly much of a threat, and was apprehended by Romanian authorities after bragging about his high-profile American victims secretly running the world. He’d also targeted Romanian officials, making him a wanted man in his own country.
But plenty of people were trying to spy on Clinton and the people around her, and Lazar arguably made their job easier.

Indeed, Clinton had been targeted by hackers and cyber spies practically from the moment she took office. In 2009, a senior member of Clinton’s staff received a spear phishing email that purported to come from a colleague in the office next door, according to former officials with knowledge of the matter. The email contained an attachment that the sender claimed was related to a recent meeting, but the recipient couldn’t recall that the meeting had ever occurred. When he inquired with his colleague, he was met with a blank stare.
Had the Clinton staffer opened the attachment, it would have installed spyware on his computer and potentially allowed a hacker to spy on other people using the State Department network. Former officials said the spear phishing email likely came from China.
That same year, in a separate hacking attempt, five State Department employees who were negotiating with Chinese officials on efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions received spear phishing emails claiming to come from a prominent Washington journalist, Bruce Stokes.
Signs pointed to the email being legitimate: The U.S. climate change envoy, Todd Stern, was a friend of Stokes’, and the subject line of the email read “China and Climate Change,” which seemed like a reporter’s inquiry. Stokes is also married to Ambassador Wendy Sherman, a seasoned diplomat who went on to lead U.S. negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The body of the message included comments related to the recipients’ jobs and their work at the time.
The spear phishing incident was documented in a State Department cable, part of a massive cached disclosed by WikiLeaks. It’s unclear whether anyone opened an attachment in the email that contained a virus, which could siphon information off the infected computer. But whomever sent the message had studied Stokes, knew who his associates were, and understood what would prompt them to trust the email.
It’s that kind of information that a reasonably sophisticated hacker could glean from someone in touch with the secretary of state. What was on her mind? What did she care about? What was likely to get her to open an attachment? Knowing the private domain Clinton used would have made any spear phishing email look more legitimate.
“At the very least, she should have been worried about individuals impersonating the [clintonemail.com] domain,” Ullrich said. Setting up standard mail filtering mechanisms and proper security certificates “would be a first step, but that should have happened right from the start,” he said.

Right from the start would have been in the days before her Senate confirmation in 2009, when the private email account was set up. If Clinton didn’t realize then that she was a security risk then, the Chinese hackers trying to break into her office should have tipped her off.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Dianne Feinstein Wants Hillary Clinton To 'Step Up' And Address Email Controversy[/h] The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine


Posted: 03/08/2015 2:36 pm EDT Updated: 03/08/2015 2:59 pm




A top Senate Democrat who has urged Hillary Clinton to run for president said on Sunday that Clinton was hurting herself by not doing more to address the controversy over the private email account that she used as secretary of state.
"What I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the preeminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate, whether it be Republican or Democrat, for the next president, to be the next president," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) said on NBC's "Meet The Press." "I think that she needs to step up and come out and state exactly what the situation is ... I think, at this point, from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her."

Clinton has only directly addressed the controversy over her email use in a tweet last week, in which she said that she had asked the State Department to release all of her emails.
Hillary isn't the only Clinton staying quiet over the controversy. Asked on Sunday whether he thought his wife was being treated fairly, former President Bill Clinton declined to give his opinion and said, "I shouldn't be making news on this."
Feinstein's comments came as several lawmakers on Sunday weighed in on Clinton's e-mail use. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chair of the select committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, claimed that there were emails missing from the messages that Clinton had disclosed to the panel. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that Clinton was not being transparent, but probably didn't break the law.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Defenseless Secretary[/h] [h=2]Hillary Clinton hasn’t offered a reasonable explanation for her private email account. That’s because there isn’t one.[/h] By Josh Voorhees







It’s been nearly four days since the world learned that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton did all of her government emailing on a private account—a decision that skirted the law and thwarted public records requests in the process. Since the story broke, Clinton remarkably has made no effort to explain herself. Instead, she’s relied on an army of spokesmen, surrogates, and other allies to deflect the criticism or simply distract from it with a variety of political explanations that don’t add up to a convincing real-world defense.

Josh Voorhees Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City.

The reason for that is simple: There isn’t actually much of a defense to be made.


Proof of that can be found in the sprawling explanations and rationalizations offered on Clinton’s behalf by members of her political network and in the single tweet that represents her only public comment on the matter to date. “I want the public to see my email,” she wrote on Twitter late Wednesday, referring to the 55,000 pages of messages from her private account that she turned over to the government late last year, only after it requested them. “I asked [the] State [Department] to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

If that is her answer, then she is willfully misreading the question. The emails to which she was referring are not the issue. Those were the messages that her own team—the only people with access to her private account—had already decided were safe to be archived by the government and, eventually, made public. Releasing those emails ahead of schedule would do nothing to refute the idea that Clinton intentionally sought out a legal gray area from which to do her business, an act that privileged her own privacy (and likely political aspirations) above the public record and, potentially, the nation’s security.

Such sleight of hand has been at the center of Team Clinton’s quest to spin the issue off the front pages. Parse the countless words offered on her behalf—either with a smile on camera, or with a sneer off of it—and you’re left with a three-pronged explanation that boils down to some combination of: 1) other politicians have acted similarly while in office; 2) this is a manufactured scandal that has no real impact outside of politics; and, finally, 3) just trust us. All three may make (some) sense inside the permanent campaign, but none amount to a believable defense outside of it. Let’s take all three in order.


1) The double standard.

Clinton’s allies have repeatedly pointed to other public officials who have used private email to conduct government business. They trumpet the fact that former Secretary of State Colin Powell used both a government account and a private one while leading the State Department during George W. Bush’s first term. They similarly note that a host of GOP presidential hopefuls, a group that includes Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have been plagued by their own email controversies.

The Powell example is undermined by the fact that his tenure at the State Department began nearly a decade before Clinton’s did, at a time when email played a significantly smaller role. But Clinton’s they-did-it-too defense really unravels when you consider the other GOP counterpoints. Her compatriots in email controversy serve as exhibits A, B, and C for why we should be skeptical of how public officials go about their business when they believe no one is watching.

A 2013 investigation into Walker’s tenure as Milwaukee County executive alleged that his staff used a private network to send emails to do political business on the taxpayer’s dime. In Christie’s case, texts and emails between his aides was the smoking gun in the Bridgegate scandal. Bush, meanwhile, reportedly set up his own private email server while governor of Florida, likely for the same reasons Clinton did. Pointing to these examples proves Clinton isn’t alone in bending rules that get in her way, but they are hardly justification for doing so.



2) A manufactured controversy.

Clinton’s team has attempted to dismiss the story by claiming that her private account had no impact on official record-keeping because any email she sent or received to anyone else in the government would have been preserved on his or her end. That argument, however, relies on her colleagues using the same type of .gov address that she herself avoided—something we have every reason to suspect is untrue. At least one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, is known to have had her own clintonemail.com address, making it difficult to believe that all of Clinton’s government business was logged on government servers. That defense also conveniently ignores any emails Clinton may have exchanged with foreign leaders or private parties outside the U.S. government, as well as the fact that it greatly reduced the chances that any Freedom of Information Act requests filed during her tenure would turn up what they were looking for.

Republicans are certainly looking to fan the flames, but just because they’re creating their own smoke doesn’t mean there isn’t fire.

Decrying the politics of the controversy also doesn’t explain why Clinton would have gone through the trouble to set up her own server and account in the first place—which she appears to have done on the same day of her first confirmation hearing. The closest thing to an explanation on that front comes by way of two unnamed former State Department employees who—after being put in touch with Business Insider by a pro-Hillary group—claimed that the private email account was set up partly for the sake of efficiency. “At the time, State Department policy would not have allowed her to have multiple email addresses on her Blackberry,” reports Business Insider. “Because of this, the officials said, she opted to have one address for both personal and governmental communications.”

Let’s suspend our disbelief for a second and ignore the fact that someone driven by efficiency would opt for the less-than-obvious hrc22@clintonemail.com handle. (Was hillary@clintonemail.com already taken?) If we take that explanation in good faith, then the nation’s top diplomat was willing to ignore White House instructions and potentially open her account up to cyberattacks just so she didn’t have to carry—or have a staff member carry—a second device around with her. If that was her overriding motivation, then it’s no surprise that her supporters have resisted making it the center of her defense.

3) Just trust us.

The argument underpinning Clinton’s entire defense rests with the fact that her office did indeed turn over those aforementioned 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department. “When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said. “Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State’s request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here.”

Clinton’s office has declined to explain how her aides selected which emails to turn over to the State Department and which ones to hold back. They also haven’t said when they would have turned over those same records if the State Department hadn't specifically requested them—given it’s been six years since her run as secretary began and two years since it ended, it’s safe to question whether they would have at all.

The Clinton camp also points to the number of pages that were turned over as though the total alone should reassure us. The flaw there, of course, is that the page count tells us next to nothing—not how many emails were actually archived, let alone whether Clinton did, in fact, turn over all the appropriate records.


Clinton’s team, then, is asking the American public to take her at her word. The problem, though, is that the once-and-future White House hopeful simply doesn’t have the right words to offer.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-hillary-clinton-personal-email-115899.html

President Barack Obama communicated via email with Hillary Clinton while she used her personal email, according to the White House.

In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama did correspond with his secretary of state via her private email address.

“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said. “I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.”

Earnest’s admission comes after Obama said on CBS on Saturday that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email and server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” According to Earnest, this comment should not be assumed to mean that Obama and Clinton never emailed back and forth.

And so it brings up the question that has been asked throughout his time as President, did he lie then or is he lying now?
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2001
Messages
16,015
Tokens
That was great today - lie after lie - talking about her mother's funeral and daughter's wedding - probably worked on half the dems
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,640
Tokens
The Lamestream Media does not want Hildabeast.

It was wishful thinking for me to have hoped this god awful candidate would implode after the Democrat primaries. No such luck, that's why the NYTs published this leak and the vultures are circling.

Now Democrats must scramble to find a viable alternative.

*sigh*
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
The Lamestream Media does not want Hildabeast.

It was wishful thinking for me to have hoped this god awful candidate would implode after the Democrat primaries. No such luck, that's why the NYTs published this leak and the vultures are circling.

Now Democrats must scramble to find a viable alternative.

*sigh*

I wouldn’t bet on her not running.

If there’s an ego to rival Obama’s it’s defiantly hers.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,640
Tokens
Phone #1:

Hillary-Phone.jpg


Phone #2:

150303_hillary_clinton_phone4_ap_629.jpg


Phone #3:

article-2051486-0E756A7300000578-923_634x348.jpg


Wait...what the hell number is this one, I'm losing count...

51072119.jpg


There's only one bigger liar than this stumbling screeching lush, but he's protected by the corrupt, criminal Establishment and corrupt, criminal Lamestream Media.

Oh well, I guess the script has been written: Fauxcahontas to the rescue?

:neenee:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,945
Messages
13,589,091
Members
101,021
Latest member
bradduke112
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com