Bill O’Reilly: Who Is Asking Jen Psaki To Stonewall? (Video)

The question of whether or not Hillary Clinton signed an exit statement saying she turned over all of her public information to the State Department when she departed, is now dogging Hillary Clinton when ventures out in public.

Fox News’ Ed Henry tried to pry an answer from her on Monday, but she rushed right past him, refusing to even acknowledge the question.

Bill O’Reilly said he was confused as to why she wouldn’t answer the question and the State Department is stonewalling.

Here’s another question, Bill said, “who is telling Miss Psaki to stonewall. Somebody is. John Kerry’s in charge, but he’s negotiating nukes with the Iranians. Why would he care about the exit document? I mean – this is so strange…everybody KNOWS the State Department is dodging. Why are they doing it?”

Excellent question. Not that we will ever be given an answer.

O’Reilly noted that the way they’re handling this issue is similar to the Bowe Bergdahl situation. “Everybody knows, the Army knows exactly what Bergdahl did in Afghanistan,” O’Reilly explained.  “So why delay the announcement? The fallout is going to be the same whether it’s now or in two months. Why embarrass a proud institution like the Army by playing games?”

“None of this makes any sense at all,” he continued.

“She either signed it or she didn’t! So say it, already!”

“All of this is insulting to we the people,” he added. “I’m teed off here – this game playing at our expense is horrendous!”

Obama “Embarrassed” For Republicans Because They Wrote to Ayatollah (His Secret Pen Pal)

I guess we’re supposed to all be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy here.

“I’m embarrassed for them,” said the president in an interview with Vice News.

“For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah,” Obama continued, “who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement. It is close to unprecedented.”

Let’s unpack Captain Bullshit’s bullshit, shall we?

• “For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah”…

Who happens to be Obama’s secret pen-pal. Obama has written to Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at least four times since taking office in 2009.

• “who they claim is our mortal enemy”…

Note he says THEY (the GOP) claim the Supreme Leader of Iran, (who says things like, “the Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’ and  “this battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it”) is our mortal enemy. Not he himself. No Obama seems to have found “common cause” with this person the unsophisticated troglodytes in the GOP think is a mortal enemy.

• “and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement”…

No. That was not their argument at all – basic or otherwise. That is a flat out lie. The point of their short, blunt letter was to explain to Khamenei (who they –  but presumably not Obama –  consider a mortal enemy) that any agreement he makes with the president will not be binding, and could be overturned by a future congress.

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
 
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
 
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.  For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
 
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Nowhere in that letter do the Senators suggest that Obama can’t be trusted to follow through with an agreement.

Every single word of Obama’s answer was complete, unadulterated bullshit. It wasn’t – as Obama’s fanbois in the media would have it – “slick” – it wasn’t “too clever by half.” It wasn’t a brilliantly deceptive Jedi mind-trick or part of an awesome 3-steps-ahead chess move. It was transparently ridiculous nonsense.

But I’m not embarrassed for Obama. We expect him to be a lying hypocrite. We expect him to be a disdainful, treacherous cretin. It is his nature.

I’m embarrassed for his media toadies who allow him – time and time again – to get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Obama Admin May Bypass Congress and Take Iran Deal To United Nations (Video)

Republicans are reacting with alarm to reports that the Obama Regime is contemplating bypassing congress on the Iranian Nuke deal, instead taking it to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.

In a letter, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said the idea of letting the U.N. consider such an agreement, while threatening to veto legislation that would allow Congress a say on it, is a “direct affront” to the American people.

Via US News and World Report:

In exchange for signing onto a deal aimed at keeping it from developing nuclear weapons, Iran seeks relief from sanctions, including those imposed by the U.S. executive branch, the United Nations and Congress.

 Corker has introduced legislation requiring any final agreement with Iran to be submitted to Congress for review before any sanctions imposed by Congress can be eased.

Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen was invited on the Kelly File Thursday night to offer his insights on this latest Obama overreach.

“It’s an outrage,” Thiessen said. “What the president is basically saying is, ‘I care more about the approval of the United Nations than I care of the approval of the elected representatives of the American people. He’s not simply not going to congress. He’s going to the United Nations and seeking the approval of dictatorships like Russia and China while threatening to veto legislation that would give congress an up or down vote on this deal.”

Asked how the UN deal would work, Thiessen said, “so what he’s trying to do is he has this non-binding agreement with Iran, and he’s going to take it to the UN Security Council and the UN Security Council will give its blessing to this deal, and give it the force of international law which means that under international law, no countries can impose sanctions on Iran unless they’re violation the deal. That’s what he thinks he’s doing. The problem with that is – under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. The US Constitution trumps the UN charter.”

The bottom line, however, is even though the agreement would not be binding, it would make it more difficult for the next president to undo because he’ll have to deal with the international community if he decides to reverse it.

Paging Obama, Holder, Sharpton: Two Cops Shot in Ferguson #CopsLivesMatter

Obama_Blood_Hands_Hope

Two cops were shot in an assassination like attack in Ferguson, Missouri, last night.

Do you think it ever crosses Al Sharpton’s, Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s minds than when they demagogue racial issues, that their rhetoric might inspire violence? When they smeared the entire Ferguson Police Department as racist, did they not realize it could lead to violence against the city’s (“racist”) police force? Because there were people who predicted this would happen the moment the DOJ’s bogus report, “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department,”  came out.

(I see they took their video down. Yeah – I’d be embarrassed, too. What follows is a description of what you can no longer see):

Did you hear that taunt from that jackass “protester” after the officers were shot – one in the shoulder and the other in the face –  one of them screaming in pain:  “Acknowledgement 9 months ago would have kept that from happening!” Huh?

And how about that moron who took the video – laughing that her friend, Carl,  who is BBQing nearby (they appear to be in the parking lot across the street from the protest), is undeterred from his culinary activities.

Let us count the ways this video appalls: The false victim mentality of the protesters with their unearned moral superiority – encouraged by the racial grievance industry and political demagogues like our president and attorney general, the white guilt (idiot taunter who joined the fray in “solidarity” with the “oppressed” blacks) the apathy of the onlookers, the abject stupidity of all of them…. It’s all there – everything that is wrong in America today captured in one awful video.

Here, via Vocativ, is a video timeline of the events in Ferguson, last night.

There are no suspects yet in custody, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Holder to send 50 FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate the shooting of these cops.

By the way – It was only yesterday evening – mere hours before the shootings that MSNBC’s Big Ed urged the Ferguson police Dept. to lay down their weapons if they want to see ” real change.”

“I’ll give you this one: What about disarming the police?” Mr. Schultz asked panelist Michael Eric Dyson, according to a video provided by The Daily Caller. “What about just having them carry nightsticks and the authority to arrest?”

Mr. Schultz then mused that there are places around the world that employ unarmed patrol men, such as in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

“I mean, it would take a brave person to do something like that,” he noted. “I know the right wing’s gonna think I’m crazy for saying that, but if you really want change, you have to institutionally show it to the people that you want to do this. And that would be part of a big social engineering project if Ferguson’s going to turn around. That’s how I see it.”

Brilliant timing.

Democrats Calling 47 GOP Senators Traitors is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

ayers-wright_obama

Democrats are in high dudgeon over an open letter 47 United States Senators sent to the Iranian regime on Monday which warned that any deal brokered by the president could be revoked by Congress.

Soon after the letter was made public, an incensed Obama suggested that the senators were in league with mad mullahs of Tehran:

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition.”

Here is what the letter stated, and you tell me if they are making common cause with our enemies:

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

It would seem the Republicans in Congress are in agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel and the leaders of the Arab world who fear that the Obama administration is brokering a terrible deal with the mad mullahs – a deal of appeasement and capitulation. A deal that allows Iran to go nuclear.

This is not what any sane person would call “making common cause with hard-liners.”

But taking their cue from the man at the top, Vice President Joe Biden,  WH Spox Josh Earnest, The New York Daily News, former WH speechwriter Jon Lovett, and others have hysterically accused the 47 republican senators of high treason. The hashtag #47Traitors is currently trending on Twitter.

This is a disgusting twisting of the facts but all part of a well coordinated campaign – as laid out by Ace of Spades on Twitter:

There is someone who appears to be making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” And it’s not the Republicans.

It is the president himself who has sent secret love letters to the ayatollahs.

Obama has made it manifestly clear that he doesn’t like our longtime ally, Israel –  as Ralph Peters so succinctly put it - “if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear.”   It is feared that Obama administration has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East – and is just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

But in Obama’s America where black is white, up is down, right is wrong – it is those who stand up for America and the free world – who are the “traitors.”

Hyperventilating Democrats are trying to claim that the GOP letter may have violated the Logan Act – which “has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years” according to Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro. If Republicans violated the Logan Act, so did the Democrats – who have a disgusting history of colluding against Republican presidents with our nation’s enemies:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

And let’s not forget post-presidential meddlings of Jimmy Carter:

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution.
Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

These Democrats did not contact foreign leaders in an effort to undermine an enemy’s nefarious goals (like the Republicans did.) They met with foreign enemies to undermine the Republican president and by extension – our national interests.

If Obama’s nuke deal was in the nation’s best interest, he would abide by the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in Section 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”  But Obama refuses to do that. Instead, he goes over their heads, while disturbing details about the deal are leaked out.

MORE:

Speaking of “making common cause with hardliners”

Via Gateway Pundit:FLASHBACK: Obama Sent Ambassador to Tehran to Assure Mullahs He Was Friend of Regime (Video)

Michael Ledeen wrote about Obama’s secret meetings with Tehran on August 29, 2014.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was AmbassadorWilliam G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret) weighed in on Hannity, last night, bringing up “the Naval hero of Chappaquiddick’s outreach to the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.

SEE ALSO: 

Roots HQ: The Left’s Unprecedented and Shocking Outrage Machine

 

 

The Mountain Behind Hillary’s Email Molehill – And a Prescient 2008 Warning From Christopher Hitchens (Video)

Pat Caddell on Hannity, Tuesday evening, said Hillary Clinton’s email scandal feels like “deja vu all over again”

After watching Clinton’s “trainwreck” of a press conference earlier today, he remarked, “I just had this horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that we’ve been here before, and Oh my God, here we go again. Not only did she not answer – she raised a lot more questions.” An AP fact-check found Clinton’s explanations to be less than exculpatory. Here are the 20 Funniest Reactions to Hillary’s Catastrophic Email Press Conference.

“This is a big hill,” Caddell continued. “It’s not a molehill. This is a big hill – this email – and the mountain standing behind it are all those contributions from foreign governments and corporations – 26 of whom tried to get work from the State Department.”

Caddell noted, “we know this server has been hacked because we have the Sydney Blumenthal hacking that took place with her in which he was sending her… dozens of emails about foreign policy.”

He was referring to the hacker known as “Guccifer” who in a e-mail blasts two years ago,  disseminated four memos to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal on foreign policy.

Via The Smoking Gun:

The 64-year-old Blumenthal, who worked as a senior White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, had his AOL e-mail account hacked last week by “Guccifer,” who has conducted similar illegal assaults against a growing list of public figures, including Colin Powell, relatives and friends of the Bush family, and a top United Nations official.

The hacker’s e-mails went to hundreds of recipients, though the distribution lists were dotted with addresses for aides to Senate and House members who are no longer in office. But many of the addresses to which the Blumenthal memos were sent are good (though it is unclear whether karl@rove.com is a solid address for the Republican mastermind).

Most of the e-mail recipients were sent four separate memos that were e-mailed to Clinton by Blumenthal during the past five months. Each memo dealt with assorted developments in Libya, including the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. One memo marked “Confidential” was sent to Clinton on September 12.

Blumenthal’s memos and e-mails to Clinton were sent to her at a non-governmental e-mail address through the web domain “clintonemail.com.”

Did Republicans not yet see the problem with this?

As TSG reported last week, after Blumenthal’s e-mail account was compromised, the hacker searched it for e-mails sent to Clinton, and further sorted the mail to segregate any attachment–like Word files–that were included in Blumenthal’s correspondence to Clinton. Many of these pilfered documents were memos to Clinton on foreign policy and intelligence matters.

While “Guccifer” appears to have downloaded many of these attachments, the hacker opted not to send the actual Word files to those on the e-mail blast list (likely as a security measure since the downloaded files could contain metadata that could lead to the hacker, who is the target of a mushrooming federal criminal investigation).

Flashback: A very prescient Christopher Hitchens (God rest his soul) in an appearance on the Larry King Show in November of 2008 – when Hillary Clinton’s name was being bandied about for Secretary of State – gave a laundry list of reasons why she should not be nominated. First and foremost – the Clintons’ history of taking corrupt foreign donations.

“There are about five or six financial scandals in her past – all of them related to foreign donors to her and her husband – the Riady family in Indonesia, innumerable people in connection to business in China – not an unimportant country in our State Department’s periphery – or our Treasury’s periphery.”

He added that there were “many, many dozens of whom fled the country rather than testify into the hearings on Clinton’s fundraising and her brother who tried to get a hazelnut monopoly in Georgia and who took loans from Marc Rich and didn’t repay them. If all of this was balanced by huge foreign policy expertise – okay, maybe, conceivably, possibly — but it isn’t! What’s her best foreign policy position?  She invented a record for herself in Bosnia – made herself into a laughing stock!”

Hillary Clinton Turned Over 55,000 Paper Printouts – not Emails

hillary-clinton-cell-phone

This seems petty….

Rather than send the records electronically, she sent tens of thousands of hard copies – actual pieces of paper, to the State Department.

Why did Mrs. Clinton have her staff go through the trouble of printing out, boxing and shipping 50,000 or 55,000 pages instead of just sending a copy of the electronic record? One can only speculate, but there is an obvious advantage: Printed files are less informative and far harder to search than the electronic originals.

Because State has only printouts of emails, department personnel responding to a Freedom of Information Act request have to go through the whole haystack rather than type “needle” into a search engine. At best, that would mean long delays in FOIA compliance.

Likewise, printouts are not subject to electronic discovery in the event of investigation or lawsuit. The Times reports that department lawyers responding to a request from the House Select Committee on Benghazi took two months to find “roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.” And printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence.

Is this normally how it’s done? I’ve seen (former) Chairman Issa presiding over Oversight hearings with boxes and boxes full of documents. I’ve been under the impression (watching various House hearings) that when the government releases documents, they come in hard copies because those records can be redacted. And the Obama administration is really big on redacting information.

Otherwise, why would the government release hard copies rather than electronic records?

The S. Rept. 104-272 – ELECTRONIC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995 stipulates that the agency should provide records in the format in which the records were maintained by the agency. But of course, Hillary maintained her emails on her private server and provided hard copies to the agency (State Dept.)

An agency shall, as requested by any person, provide 
        records in any form or format in which such records are 
        maintained by that agency.
          ``(C) An agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for 
        records in electronic form or format and provide records in the 
        form or format requested by any person, including in an 
        electronic form or format, even where such records are not 
        usually maintained but are available in such form or format.''

So there’s that. And so much more.

Hard to keep up with Hillary’s email and foreign donations scandals, today:

Ace of Spades HQ: Seven Wealthy Men Keeping Their Money at the Scandal-Plagued HSBC Have Donated/Bribed $81 Million to Hillary Clinton’s Bribery Storefront

Weasel Zippers: Mystery Location Of Clinton Email Server Seen As Matter Of National Security

Sharyl Attkisson, The Daily Signal: High-Ranking Federal Officials’ History of Using Personal Email for Government Business

(Like I’ve been saying – this is a Regime-wide practice.)

Ace of Spades: Bad Ass: Hillary Clinton Answers Spontaneous, Impropmtu Questions from “Real Women” Note: Even AP Says These “Real Women” “Appeared to be Reading Their Questions From a TelePrompter”

Via National Review:

What’s the solution for Hillary Clinton’s email troubles? “Disclose everything,” says Charles Krauthammer. “This whole thing is about non-disclosure,” said Krauthammer on Monday’s Special Report. “It’s about hiding e-mails. It’s about having your own server, so you have your own lawyers protecting it. It’s about having this money flow in from the outside world while she is secretary of state, and, now, knowing that she might be the president — which obviously is a kind of corruption.