Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a strong, tough woman, yet for some reason she has to be hidden away and only come out for safe speeches where she won’t get questions from the press.
In recent weeks, the media has jumped on statements made by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Why? Because they’re all obviously running for president and they have made themselves available to the press. When the media asks them ridiculous questions about President Obama’s patriotism or evolution, they answer, because they’re there to answer the questions in the first place.
Clinton is not.
She came close at her recent Silicon Valley speech, when she answered questions from Recode columnist Kara Swisher, but they were softballs. The two even high-fived after Swisher told Clinton she “interviewed President Obama last week and I’m eager to interview another president.”
So suffice it to say, Clinton wasn’t going to get any questions about accepting donations from foreign governments for her foundation or whether she thinks late-term abortion is acceptable or whether she believes George W. Bush loves his daughters.
Instead, Clinton has avoided the press (and even Americans until last week, as her first public appearance in 2015 was a month earlier in Canada), and only emerged for two speeches in two friendly venues. The first was to women in tech who say discrimination is the reason for fewer women going into the industry. The second was to EMILY’s List, a group dedicated to getting pro-abortion choice Democratic women elected.
She did not take questions from the general press either.
Category Archives: Elitism
Over at Media Matters for America — the liberal spin operation founded by well-known Clinton backer David Brock — the machine is in high gear contending that Hillary Clinton did nothing unlawful by conducting her business as secretary of state from a personal email account, because “requirements to maintain such records did not exist during her tenure.”
Which, of course, is bunk.
Here is the Federal Records Act, passed in 1950:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities. (44 U.S. Code § 3101)
So the question would seem to be: Are emails records? The answer is obvious — and was so long before Hillary Clinton took over at Foggy Bottom. Here is the State Department’s own treatment of the question from 1995:
Another important modern improvement is the ease of communication now afforded to the Department world-wide through the use of E-mail. . . . All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law. (5 FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] 443.1)
In fact, step-by-step guidance was being offered to employees two decades ago about how to preserve email records. So if Clinton failed to follow procedures, it was not for lack of available instruction on the subject.
There have been modifications, particularly in recent years, about what constitutes “private email” that does not fall under the purview of these regulations, but such details are irrelevant here, because Clinton apparently did not transfer any of the communications from her private account for preservation. To maintain that that is above-board, one also must maintain that Clinton did not send a single work-related email in four years as America’s top diplomat. Which we know is false.
So, yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law.
A solid majority of House Republicans — 167 in all — rejected a call for GOP unity from Speaker John Boehner earlier on Tuesday, a sign of his slipping grip on power in the House after he flip-flopped to support President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty by providing funding for it.
“We all need to be team players and support each other,” Boehner told House Republicans, according to a House GOP aide, in regards to his new efforts to pass a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that doesn’t block Obama’s executive amnesty.
That’s not exactly what even Boehner himself has done, however.
“If these guys spent half as much time fighting Obama as they do attacking conservatives, maybe we’d win,” Huelskamp said, while noting that AAN is clearly “Boehner’s group” and that the Speaker himself must be personally aware of the attack ads.
“Now, we know that Republican leadership never had a plan or even a desire to win,” Manning wrote in a piece where he detailed how Tuesday will be a day that “will live in infamy.”
“We also know that Senator Harry Reid still runs the Senate and Congress as a whole, with the minority imposing their will on the majority in an unprecedented manner,” Manning added.
There isn’t very much that’s interesting about the Hillary Rodham Clinton email revelation—that she never had a government account, that she used a private email service for official communication, that she thereby exposed the national diplomatic mission to malevolent intelligence operations and cybercriminals, etc. Of course she did. She’s a Clinton, and the Clintons are in it for themselves.
What is interesting is the Washington Post’s report that she apparently used an account that she established the day the Senate began confirmation hearings for her appointment as secretary of state. She’s a Clinton, and that Clintons cannot be faulted for failing to think in advance. Theories are proliferating about why she would do that—what did/does she have to hide? Here’s my theory:
She was preparing for failure.She was a grossly incompetent secretary of state who knew that she was going to run for president again, and thus took positive steps in advance to put in place protocols that would help her to mask her inadequacy. It is difficult even for her admirers to make a credible argument that her time in that office was anything other than disastrous. She knows this. The news media and the Democrats know this, too.Mrs. Clinton’s career in public office has been nothing more than a tribute to her husband, a fact that you would think would rankle the feminists who are so enthused about the former first lady’s presidential ambitions. Maybe it’s time to take off the presidential kneepads and admit what everybody knows: She isn’t very good at this sort of thing, and promoting her to her next level of incompetence is an invitation to disaster.
House Benghazi Committee Busts Hillary Clinton For Using Personal Email To Evade Transparency Requirements
If we still lived in a nation where the rule of law meant anything to our left-wing aristocracy, the discovery that Hillary Clinton used personal email accounts to evade federal transparency requirements would finish her, and probably finish Barack Obama with her.
He had to be in on the scheme, after all. Nearly every high official in the Obama Administration is a willing co-conspirator. They all knew Clinton completely avoided using the State Department’s official email system. In fact, it turns out she didn’t even use it once. This allows her little gang to sanitize her correspondence at its leisure, turning over whatever they feel like revealing to congressional investigators.
(Be on guard against liberal attempts to spin this story away by whining about every public official who ever used a public email account. The key detail here is that Clinton rinsed everything through her off-the-books account, in clear violation of requirements instituted because of previous private-email imbroglios – requirements Clinton and her staff could not possibly have misunderstood or been ignorant of.)
We don’t live in a country with the rule of law any more, of course, so Clinton probably won’t be crushed by this new scandal, and it won’t bother Obama at all. It would be a minor miracle if anyone from his slavish press corps even bothered to ask him about it, especially since the news is breaking on the eve of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “controversial” address to Congress (controversial because His Majesty decreed it so) and that’s going to eat up an entire news cycle.
The email revelations might still be a significant contribution to the growing pile of gaffes and scandal crud weighing Clinton’s prospective presidential campaign down. No matter how corrupt and power-hungry the Democrat Party has become, some significant number of its voters must still care about transparency, honesty, and lawful conduct in the mega-government they hold to be far more virtuous than private-sector corporations.
The Department of Justice blocked an attempt to force the Internal Revenue Service to search for Lois Lerner’s missing emails at off-site storage facilities, according to a lawyer pushing to obtain the emails.
The IRS never looked for Lerner’s backup email tapes at the West Virginia storage facility where they were being housed. Treasury deputy inspector general Timothy Camus told Congress that the IRS never asked IT professionals at the New Martinsville, W.V. storage site for the backup tapes. Camus only found the backup tape for Lerner’s missing 2011 emails about two weeks ago.
But the Obama administration knew that emails were stored at off-site facilities, and even shut down a legal request to send somebody to go look for them.
“We said in court that there are off-site servers where all IRS emails are stored,” lawyer Cleta Mitchell told The Daily Caller.
Mitchell represents the voter-ID group True the Vote in its lawsuit against the IRS over improper targeting. Shortly after it was revealed last summer that the IRS was missing Lerner’s emails, Mitchell petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton for an independent forensic examiner to be appointed to investigate the missing emails.
Mitchell referred to the IRS’ off-site storage facilities in West Virginia and Pittsburgh in court in July. But DOJ lawyers representing the IRS and the Treasury inspector general argued that Mitchell could not even discuss the existence of the storage facilities in her capacity as a lawyer.
Near the end of his new autobiography, David Axelrod sheds some light on President Obama’s distaste for democracy. “Obama has limited patience or understanding for officeholders whose concerns are more parochial–which would include most of Congress and many world leaders,” Axelrod writes, in noting Obama’s preference for supercilious vanity projects. Yet while Axelrod paints with a broad brush, he gives two examples, and they are telling. He writes: “Whether it’s John Boehner or Bibi Netanyahu, few practiced politicians appreciate being lectured on where their political self-interest lies.” This passage is an important preamble to the current dustup between the two administrations.
One of the regular critiques from the administration and its spokesmen in the media of tomorrow’s speech by Netanyahu is that Bibi just wants to use the speech as a prop in his own reelection campaign. As Axelrod’s book demonstrates, catering to voters and representing their interests in the government is borderline incomprehensible to Obama. His disdain for other world leaders who follow the wishes of their employers–the taxpayers–instead of doing what Obama wants is especially strange, considering its undisguised imperialist overtones.
And Netanyahu, of late, has found himself the world leader who values democratic elections far too much for Obama’s taste. When Netanyahu pressed ahead with giving the speech to a joint session of Congress, the Obama administration said they’d hit back, and suggested one way of doing so would be for them to bash Bibi through the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, as they often do when they want to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Israel.
It’s no surprise the recitation of history makes Obama uncomfortable. As we’ve seen, the president’s ignorance of history is comprehensive, but he is especially unknowledgeable on Israeli and Jewish history. It doesn’t seem to interest him, and it shows.
So it’s always been a bit rich for the president who thinks history started with his own presidential election to accuse others of not thinking about the big picture. What Obama means by this is actually that these other politicians and world leaders aren’t thinking enough about Obama’s legacy, which he’d like them to prioritize over the needs and wants of their citizens, Israel being no exception.
President Barack Obama today introduced his plan for a progressive takeover of state and local policing.
“We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” he said Monday.
“We need to seize that opportunity… this is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come,” Obama said, as he touted a new interim report from his Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
Obama also instructed his media allies to help a federalization of policing, and to sideline critics of centralized policing rules. “I expect our friends in the media to really focus on what’s in this report and pay attention to it.”
Obama is using the crisis sparked by the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, who was killed after assaulting a shopkeeper and a policeman in Ferguson, Mo. Obama and his deputies stoked the subsequent controversy in the run-up to the 2014 election, in the hope of boosting African-American turnout. The mobilization effort failed, partly because local law-enforcement officials released a video showing Brown’s strong-arm robbery of a store shortly before the fatal shooting.
Now Obama is trying to expand progressive control by attaching more conditions to federal funding of state and local law-enforcement efforts. “We can expand the [federally-funded] COPS program… to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report,” he said.
Those best practices likely will eventually include rules that restrict police investigations of groups that are part of the Democratic coalition, and rules that try to level convictions and penalties among various sub-groups of the United Stats, regardless of actual conviction rates.
“I think communities [with police forces] across the board are going to need to consider… recommendations around prohibiting racial profiling [and] that’s a step that we’ve already taken at the federal level,” Obama said.
The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.
The IRS is defending its decision to let illegal immigrants claim up to three years’ refunds on income even if they never paid income taxes, telling Congress in a new letter last week that agency lawyers have concluded getting a Social Security number triggers the ability to go back and ask for previous refunds.
President Obama’s new deportation amnesty could grant Social Security numbers to as many as 4 million illegal immigrants, making many of them eligible for tax refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit even for years when they cheated on their taxes, working off the books and refusing to file tax returns.
“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in his letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley on Wednesday.
Mr. Grassley said that made a mockery of the law, and said he’ll try to write a bill specifically prohibiting it.
“The tax code shouldn’t reward those who broke our immigration laws,” the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement.
Harry Reid is taking unprecedented steps to block Senate Republicans, even though his actions will result in nothing but procedural delay.
In another example of Democrats playing the role of obstructionists, Harry Reid will force the Senate to go through procedural hurdles to delay Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from bringing up the president’s Keystone XL veto for an override vote.
Last week, President Obama vetoed the popular bipartisan Keystone XL Pipeline bill passed by the Senate.
This week, the Senate is planning a vote to override the president’s veto. Democrats, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, are set to revoke normal order and attempt to filibuster the override of the President’s veto message.
The cloture vote on a veto message will be the first in the history of the United States Senate. That is because the threshold for a veto override is 67, while the threshold for a cloture vote is only 60. The cloture vote is nothing more than a redundancy since it is assumed cloture would be reached if the Senate were aiming for a two-thirds override.
“The number of senators required to end debate is less than the number required to override a veto,” the Congressional Research Service said.
The Senate majority, joined by a number of Democrats as well, will file for cloture on Wednesday so that the override vote can take place on Thursday.
McConnell called out Reid’s actions on the Senate floor on Monday. He deplored Reid for partisan posturing that stands in direct contrast to the bipartisan spirit exhibited in the Keystone bill.
“There is no reason for a filibuster other than to delay and cause gridlock simply for its own sake.,” McConnell said. “It’s certainly disappointing, but the new Congress won’t be deterred from fighting for jobs and the middle class.”