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.

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.

 

 

Jeanine Pirro: Hillary Clinton a ‘Veteran of Scandal’ (Video)

In her opening statement, Saturday night, Jeanine Pirro assailed Hillary Clinton and the Obama State department for their hypocritical stance on email transparency.

Her voice dripping with sarcasm, she said, “so Hillary Clinton used her private email for work.  Everybody does it. Who cares! And why is this even important?”

Answering her own question, she said, ” because this is a woman with a past. A history of evading, obfuscating, hiding, here, making sure we only see sanitized contents of e-mails. And no one knows the game better than she. No one spins or does the Washington two-step better than she does. She’s a veteran, a veteran of scandal.”

She pointed out that Clinton “forced out that former US Air Force General, an Ambassador to Kenya, in 2012 in part for using personal e-mails for official business. Your henchwoman, Cheryl Mills told him he violated your state department policies while you didn’t even have a government account. But the rules don’t apply to you, do they?…While she pontificates to her subordinates about following the e-mail law, she does not practice what she preaches. Hillary, have you been studying Claire Underwood in House of Cards?” she asked before playing a clip of Underwood saying “you don’t have to mean it, you just have to say it.”

Pirro continued, “Clinton and her staff decided what e-mails to turn over to the State Department. Who knows what was included and what was not included? We don’t even know how many there were to begin with. So, by sifting through them, she has decided what we should see and not see. So, the State Department doesn’t have all them, they can only produce the ones that she has handed over. Hillary, that’s why you’re supposed to use a government account. You don’t get to hide what you don’t want us to see. That’s just not how it works.”

Pirro concluded “you exposed us, the United States of America, to data breaches because you wanted to protect your own butt…why? Could it be that raising money for the Clinton Foundation — up to $25 million from the Saudis — while Secretary of State [note: the Saudi government did not give its $25 million in donations during Clinton’s time at the State Department] was something you didn’t want us to see? I wonder, Hillary, when you were Secretary of State for four years, how many Freedom of Information requests were denied because the State Department didn’t have any information and were just stamped ‘lack of information?’”

She had Ann Coulter on to discuss the email scandal.

Coulter has a theory. “I think Hillary is just really dumb,” she posited. “It is so stupid – it is such a self-inflicted wound — it reminds us of all the worst parts of the Clinton era.”

“I want to see her SAT scores,” she added.

What Did I Tell You?: Valerie Jarrett Offered Chance to Defend Hillary Clinton, Declines

War-Bonnet-Warren

Under the bus:

She talks up how important “transparency” is to the lying grifter Obama. When asked if she would fire someone conducting all of his business on private email, she declines to answer that “hypothetical.”

As I’ve been saying – the powers that be want to clear the decks for Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Flashback to Ed Klein last July in the NY Post: This means Warren: Obama backs challenger to Hillary: (Poo pooed at the time.)

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democratic Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

“Stunning”: Media rips Hillary Clinton over email scandal

This Washington Free Beacon “supercut” highlights the media firestorm over Hillary Clinton’s shady email practices whilst Sec. of State.

Unlike most other Obama-era scandals – EVERYONE is talking about it.

I put “stunning” in sneer-quotes because this is not stunning at all. The liberal media do not want another Clinton in the White House, PERIOD –  with all those bad memories of constant scandals having to be ignored or defended…. All those mortifying stories they were forced to pretend were not a big deal… Her checkered distant and no-so distant past now already coming back to haunt her…. Hillary is damaged goods.

Defending Obama in the face of his lawlessness, duplicity and corruption is probably doing them all sorts of psychic pain. His Praetorian media have almost two more years to go of defending the indefensible, and it must be getting old. Those who still retain some semblance of a soul, are getting worn down.

The Democrat party today is run like a criminal organization, so you would think their media water-carriers would be comfortable with covering up scandals – and of course – many of them do quite willfully and cheerfully do embrace that – but more and more they make themselves look ridiculous in doing so.

In the beginning of the Obama era – the media could paint his critics as haters, racists, conspiracy-mongers, “RWNJs” etc – because he was still an unknown quantity (to most Americans.) It was a free-for-all for the left and they enjoyed every minute of it. But those Obama-worshiping days are (for the most part) over.  Now that the public has lived under King Putt’s divisive, scandal-ridden, disastrous, imperial reign for six years, the critics can no longer be scoffed at.

Hillary still has some loyalists in the media who are willing to carry her water. But the dominant voices want to moveon.org.

Backers of the fundamental transformation want a fresh face to take the driver’s seat in 2017.

War-Bonnet-Warren

Lizzie Warren is the Change They Believe In, now – and she is the present Regime’s choice.

Hillary is toast, whether she realizes it, or not.

UPDATE:

You can put Politico in the pro-Hillary camp.

Ace of Spades HQ: TMZ Dares to Ask Hillary a Question About EmailGate; Politico Brands This Uncouth Act of Journalism “Stalking”

Hot Air: Video: U.S. media outlet goes rogue, asks would-be president about her crooked recordkeeping

po

SEE ALSO:

WFB: MSNBC: Clinton’s Email Tweet is Nonsense, ‘Insulting To Americans’ Intelligence’

WFB: Experts: Clinton Bought ‘High-End Security’ but Forgot Last Step, Left Server Vulnerable

WFB: ABC: Clinton’s Email Disclosure ‘Going to Be on the Honor System’

The Washington Examiner: Why can’t Hillary Clinton take questions from the press

Biden Speaks The Truth: “Past 6 Years Very Very Hard On This Country” (Video)

Biden

I think someone may have slipped Vice President Joe Biden some truth serum this morning before his speech at the House Democratic Caucus retreat in Philadelphia.

Veering off the “everything’s coming up roses” narrative Obama spun in his SOTU speech, Biden told Democrats that, “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country.”

He continued stating the painfully obvious truth,” and they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel]. They’ve been really tough for our party. And together we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain.”

Via The Weekly Standard: 

Here’s an idea. Instead of making unpopular decisions, try something new. Like making a decision — just ONE FREAKING DECISION that isn’t an unmitigated disaster.

 SEE ALSO:

The Politico: At retreat, Dem staffers escort reporters to restroom

You may remember a similar situation at the Clinton Global Initiative conference back in September, where there were “media minders” escorting reporters right to the bathroom stalls.

During Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the retreat Friday, reporters were required to have a staff member, usually a junior member of the press team, escort them when going to the bathroom or to the lobby. The filing center for reporters was at a separate hotel from where the retreat was taking place, so access was limited to members of Congress specifically made available to the press.

“It was a police state. It was absurd how heavy handed the capitol police and Democratic staff were in trying to control everywhere the press went,” New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said in an interview.

Peters said at one point he was also barred from entering the hotel where the retreat was taking place, despite the fact he had an invitation to eat breakfast with a member of Congress.

 

Gowdy: It’s About Damn Time We Use the Power of the Purse (Video)

On Wednesday, Republicans in the House passed a bill that funds DHS for the rest of the year, but stipulates that none of the funds may be used for Obama’s executive amnesty.

Obama has of course, vowed to veto the bill, and with terrorism in the news again, Democrats are using national security as a way to hammer the GOP for allowing the DHS funding to lapse.

On the House floor, Wednesday, Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) gave a “rousing” speech recalling the national unity that followed the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001. Speaking truth to power, he declared, “this bill is not about homeland security, it’s about Republicans political security!” (An amazing admission of what Dems know amnesty is all about, n’est pas?) He characterized the Republican bill to stop Obama’s executive amnesty as “an injustice to those who suffered on 9/11 and still remember that.” He continued, “for the first time in history they are holding security hostage to the ugly politics of immigration!” He went on like that for about five more excruciating minutes, of course eliciting enthusiastic applause from many of the same people who for eight years did everything they could to undermine national security under Bush.

When it was Gowdy’s turn to speak, he blasted Obama for his executive overreach on immigration reform.

“This, Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the very same president, over twenty different times, said he lacked the power to do what he just did.

And he repeatedly said he is not a king. Now, Madam Speaker, his position may have changed, after the election I hasten to add, but the Constitution has not.”

After a disruption on the House floor interrupted Gowdy’s speech for a few moments, he continued, and with the Democrats in mind, said, “I’ll back up in case they missed it,”  which elicited grins from the reps behind him (Mia Love on the right, Scalise to his left – not sure who the guys directly behind him were.) Gowdy received enthusiastic applause when he implored Congress to stand up for the American people:

This is not a fight between Republicans and Democrats. This is not even a fight over immigration reform. This is a fight over whether this branch of government will ever find the courage to stand up for itself.

This same document that this and all presidents swears to defend gives this body certain tools – tools like the power of the purse. And it’s about damn time we use that tool.

Gowdy was one of the 67 congressmen who voted against the Cromnibus bill in December.

Last February, he told Jeanine Pirro on Fox News that congress could remove funding for Obama’s pet projects and vacations using the appropriations process.

People don’t like the Affordable Care Act but they don’t like our tactic of shutting down the government,” he said. “OK. Fine. We got that. We still have appropriation bills that are coming. So what we ought to do is say, Mr. President, you want to run roughshod over the Constitution, we have the power of the purse. We’re not going to fund your pet projects. We’re not going to fund your green energy initiatives. We are not going it fund your vacations.”

In March of 2014, Congressman Gowdy along with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced “the Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE the Law) Act (ENFORCE the Law) Act (H.R. 4138) to rein in the growing problem of executive overreach and restore balance to the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.”

The introduction of this bill follows the House Judiciary Committee’s careful consideration of the President’s failure to faithfully execute our laws. The Committee has held two hearings on this issue, at which members heard from constitutional scholars on the scope of this problem and legislative solutions. The House Judiciary Committee will markup the ENFORCE the Law Act tomorrow at 10:30am in 2141 Rayburn.

The bill passed the House on March 12 but died in the Senate. Now with a Republican controlled Senate, it should be taken up again.