DOJ: No Contempt Charges For Lois Lerner – Sen. Menendez Indicted

Let’s see. We’ve got two corrupt individuals, here, but two very different treatments under the law.

One of the above did everything she was asked to do and more, kept her mouth shut and destroyed evidence. She gets a gold star.

The other person did bad. He was critical of the administration’s negotiations with Iran and embarrassed the president. He gets indicted.

As Ace says, The masks are all off now.

The DoJ won’t press contempt charges against her for her busted attempt to plead the fifth (Here Is a Statement of Alleged Facts I Want to Introduce Into the Record/Having Done That, I Now Say I Don’t Want to Speak for the Record).

Supposedly the DoJ is still considering bringing some sort of charges against her over the Tea Party Targeting.

(Pssssst: There will be no meaningful charges. You read it here, first!)

As for Democrat Bob Menendez, (who earlier this year suggested that the  White House gets its talking points from Tehran) we have this: 

This is the the quasi fascist state of law enforcement in America today where the DOJ selectively and capriciously decides to enforce the law to the benefit of some and the detriment of others – depending on political considerations.

SEE ALSO:

Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch Accuses Obama Administration of Misleading Court on Hillary Clinton Email Scandal:

Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide’s emails.  Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary Clinton’s and other secret email accounts in order to “avoid further undue delays, prejudice and potential spoliation.” In response, the Justice Department, on behalf of the State Department, told the federal court handling the matter (U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth) that there was no need for a hearing until at least late April and that, contrary to statements by Mrs. Clinton and various administration spokesmen, it was not aware of the secret email issue until recently.  In its response (Reply in Support of a Motion for a Status Conference), Judicial Watch cited Mrs. Clinton’s press statement:

Secretary Clinton was the head of the agency and the State Department cannot claim it was unaware of the State Department’s failure to records-manage agency emails from the Office of the Secretary. In fact, the “Statement from the Office of Former Secretary Clinton” states that “[h]er usage [of non-“state.gov” email for State Department business] was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed.”

Judicial Watch also accused the Obama administration of continuing to thwart the FOIA:

The State Department has yet to demonstrate how it is satisfying its obligations under FOIA in light of recent revelations that Secretary Clinton’s emails were not being properly managed, retained and produced. This also applies to emails received or sent by other officials or employees within the Secretary’s office to conduct government business who used non-“state.gov” email addresses. To determine the adequacy of the State Department’s search, both Judicial Watch and the Court should be informed by the Department directly of the details surrounding the retention of agency emails within the Office of the Secretary and the extent of the Department’s ability to search, request and retrieve those records …

Had Judicial Watch not challenged the State Department’s search, this case would most likely have been dismissed before any public revelations were made about the unlawful arrangement relating to the State Department’s handling of agency emails during Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department …

Video: Sheriff David Clarke Slams DOJ’s “Junk” Ferguson Report: “Bogus Use of Statistics,” “Misapplication of Data”

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke is one of the few people in law enforcement willing to come out in public and forcefully say what he thinks Barack Obama and Eric Holder are really up to with their false racial grievance narrative. He has been calling them out in the media for many months, while most in the the media have meekly and cravenly accepted the Bravo Sierra coming from the Regime.

On Saturday’s Justice with Judge Jeanine, Clark said he wasn’t surprised by the recent police shootings in Ferguson, Missouri.

“That’s what I knew this was going to come to,” he declared. “I knew that stoking this flame would cause individuals to blatantly now, come out and attack law enforcement officers – like the ambush in NYC with officers Ramos and Liu, like the incident in LA where a police squad was patrolling a neighborhood and took on sniper fire – as well as San Francisco. So this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and I believe it’s going to continue until these individuals stop this witch-hunt – the president and Eric Holder – this witch-hunt on the American police officer and American law enforcement agencies.”

Clarke said that the DOJ’s report on the Ferguson Police Department was payback for not being able to bring charges against Officer Darren Wilson – the implication being that the Ferguson Police Department didn’t play ball and help the DOJ railroad Wilson.

“He (Holder) knew that he was going to be able to do it – and when he found out her didn’t, he figured he’d get them back, this way,” the sheriff charged, calling the DOJ’s report “a junk report” with a “bogus use of statistics” and “misapplication of data.”

As for the racist emails, he said, “I’d like to know the methodology he used for this report. Did he find a couple of racist, or off color emails combing through 25,000, 50,000, he saw a few? Or was this two out of maybe 10 or 12? There’s a lot that hasn’t been explained about this report, judge.”

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!”

Gowdy: We Learned The Day Before the NYTs Article Broke That Hillary Didn’t Have an Official Email Acct (Video)

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Congressman Trey Gowdy both appeared on The Kelly File Monday night to talk about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

Megyn Kelly asked Napolitano to weigh in on Obama’s take on the controversy.

“I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails that had to do with official business need to be disclosed,” Obama told CBS News’ Bill Plante over the weekend.

“Apparently the president has the same misunderstanding of federal law that his former secretary of state does,” Napolitano quipped.

He went on to explain the federal statute that says documents and records by high-ranking officials belong to the government. “A former official can ask the government for personal documents back, but Clinton did the opposite,” Napolitano said.

“She retained and concealed 100 percent of the documents with which she dealt while she was secretary of state in 48 months. She decided what was governmental and kept what she didn’t want to reveal,” he continued.

Kelly announced that Hillary will be addressing the email scandal within the next 48 hours. The forum has yet to be disclosed, but it is a safe bet that it will be hermetically sealed event with only friendly reporters allowed in with pre-approved questions.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi came on next to talk about the State Department’s unimpressive reaction to HillaryGate.

“They’re not going to go back and look for responsive documents to subpoenas, to litigation inquiries, to FOIA requests, Kelly noted, after showing a clip of State Dept. Deputy Press Sec. Marie Harf telling a reporter that they have no plans to find documents that have been requested retroactively. “If you asked prior to the date Hillary’s 55,000 pages were turned over – a week ago, or two weeks ago – you’re out of luck.”

“Well, the State Department is not going to get to be the final arbiter of that,” Gowdy drawled. “I have lost confidence for a myriad of reasons – not the least of which  – they missed every single opportunity over the past six months to tell us that not only did she not have an official email account. They didn’t even have her records.  You would think that that would come up in all the conversations that we had with the State Department. Which is precisely why they are not the neutral, third-party arbiter that I would recommend.”

Gowdy then went on to describe the run-around he got from State, Hillary, and her lawyer, last summer when it was first disclosed that some of her emails were on her personal account. Gowdy was stonewalled for months as he kept pressing for the rest of them. It wasn’t until the day before the NYTs story broke that he found out that  she did not have an official email account.

Gowdy wants a neutral arbiter – “a federal judge, archiver, or inspector general” to take charge of getting the info he seeks from her server.

UPDATE: 

Via Mediaite: Hillary Clinton to Hold Press Conference Today on Email Story:

Hillary Clinton will hold a press conference Tuesday afternoon to address the revelation of her exclusive use of a personal email account and private server to conduct State Department business while Secretary of State.

MSNBC’s Clinton beat reporter Alex Seitz-Wald confirmed the presser. The start time is unknown, but Mediaite will link to a livestream when it becomes available:

Trey Gowdy: “There Are Gaps of Months and Months and Months In Hillary’s Emails (Video)

According to Rep. Trey Gowdy, the SC Republican who is leading the House investigation on Benghazi, there are “huge gaps” in the emails the State Department have provided to his select committee.

After playing a clip of Obama talking up his “most transparent administration ever,” on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sunday morning, Bob Schieffer asked Gowdy the $64,000 question:

“By using this private account on a private server, she could not only keep those emails out of the reach of the government…but she could delete the emails without anybody knowing it,” Schieffer  noted. “So she could have sent you some emails - but are there any gaps in the emails you’ve received thus far from her?”

“Uh yes sir,” Gowdy replied, brightening. “There are gaps of months and months and months – and if you think of that iconic picture of her on a c-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on, and she has a handheld devise in her hand – we have no emails from that day. In fact, we have no emails from that trip. So it strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, and there’s not a single document that has been passed over to congress. So – there are huge gaps, and in respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what’s a public record and what’s not. We need someone (and frankly I’ve lost confidence in the State Department to make that determination.) They’re the ones who allowed this arrangement – they’re the ones who did nothing about this arrangement until they got a request from our committee.”

Obama, of course, only found out about Hillary’s unorthodox email practices when he read about it in the newspaper. But he has full confidence that she has provided all of her emails to the committee. Because in case you haven’t heard – his is the most transparent administration in American history.