Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hillary Broke the Law and It’s All My Fault
Big news Monday night as the New York Times reported Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to conduct all official State Department business. This appears to be a violation of federal law since such communications must be kept as an official agency record.
Twitter was abuzz with commentary, with many reporters incredulous.
how’d she get away with it for so long? http://t.co/pvJ78J6t0l
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) March 3, 2015
Shock of shocks, I responded to the BuzzFeed Politics journalist with a mild critique.
Asked the journalist. MT @RosieGray how’d she get away with it for so long? http://t.co/bU2ysqdV8U
— jon gabriel (@exjon) March 3, 2015
It’s obvious why Clinton and so many other Obama officials get away with breaking the law. The D.C. press corps has little interest in holding their favorite president accountable. Sure, this White House might have a flaw here or there but he means well, and did you hear what crazy Todd Akin said about dinosaurs and contraception?
By pointing out this obvious bias, I broke Beltway etiquette. Team Journolist lashed out.
@exjon i wasn’t in the business yet for most of Hillary’s tenure at State. thanks for the baseless insinuation though
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) March 3, 2015
.@exjon it’s that same fourth estate that exposed this
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) March 3, 2015
Actually, the Fourth Estate didn’t expose this. Trey Gowdy did:
The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
The Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich admitted as much. But now that I had mildly criticized a fellow Beltway reporter, I had to be mocked.
@exjon @RosieGray is right – you didn’t read this from a press release. Remember? It was like 15 minutes ago.
— Jackie Kucinich (@JFKucinich) March 3, 2015
A reporter from the New York Times jumped in as well:
@exjon @RosieGray so true Jon, where have the mainstream media been lately on the Clintons, their finances, foundation, etc.?
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) March 3, 2015
Rosie Gray’s editor joined in the fun by mocking Breitbart (one day after the anniversary of his death, incidentally):
@nickconfessore @exjon @RosieGray cmon nick give Breitbart some credit here.
— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) March 3, 2015
Four highly paid Acela elites ganging up on a lowly Ricochet editor? I thanked them all for holding me accountable for daring to question the Fourth Estate. Confessore said that was “lazy cynical [expletive]” and issued a long rant ridiculing anyone who suggests the media is biased.
It always amazes me how reporters — professionals dedicated to questioning others — have such thin skin when they themselves are questioned. Unlike these pros, I was calm, polite and used no profanity; they still reacted with rage. Despite their claim to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” their actions show otherwise.
There was a single Twitter headshake wondering how one of the most powerful people on the planet got away with violating federal law for years. This was followed by a barrage of ridicule, mockery and outrage attacking a lowly citizen who typed “Asked the journalist.”
The D.C. press corps is so unsettled by offering even the mildest concern about Democrats that they must quickly return to their comfort zone mocking proles. There is little interest in questioning the rich and powerful, it’s all about defending their tribe. The Clintons certainly don’t view Gray, Confessore, et al., as fellow elites, but this only makes these reporters more desperate to flaunt the tribal markers.
Kudos to the New York Times for grudgingly holding a liberal accountable now and then. But if you want to see zeal, wait until Gov. Walker says something about evolution.
Published in General
All I can say about this whole thing is, What difference, at this point, does it make?
Who cares about a “twit-spat.” Hillary in a blue dress is bigger news. :)
jk
A commenter on the NYT story actually said just that. That, who cares, because it’s time for a woman president. Really.
Hillary’s mobility problems have been well documented by Andrew Stiles, Ace and others. (Her Walker problems go beyond Scott.) But until I saw that picture I did not know She had to be strapped on to a board and propped up.
Lets call them what they are.
All I know is, when I worked for the Navy Department, as part of the IT inservice we had to sign a statement to the effect that use of personal email for official correspondence was illegal. I’m sure the same records keeping rules applied to State.
Hmm…
That logo looks a little too much like the Hall of Justice for my tastes. ;-)
Jules PA
Who cares about a “twit-spat.” Hillary in a blue dress is bigger news. :)
jk
This is off the point, and a lot more sexist-male than Misthiocracy was being, but it’s not just a blue dress… it’s a blue dress covered with things that look like tadpoles… or…um…
(I know, I know. I’m supposed to be a good person.)
I am a cynic, I think this whole tempest is happening now because HRC thought it would come out anyway, so have the discussion now, so when she becomes a candidate, the response is nothing new here, this is old news, so move on, already. Have to give Moveon.org something to do.
Looks more like a Chairman Mao jacket to me, albeit one with “things that look like tadpoles… or… um…” – yeah. But that’s just me.
In light of the news yesterday that American hero and former CIA Director (and terribly flawed human being, although compared to Slick and Swillary, he is still a saint) Gen David Petraus pled guilty to a misdemeanor for breaching secrecy laws, who thinks Queen Swillary will get the same treatment? Not I for one–the criminalization of politics is upon us–problem is that the HypocRATS are the only side that practices it!! The beginning of the shift from soft tyranny to the real thing!!
I heard Mark Levin yesterday call for non-payment of taxes in protest in the event King Obama unilaterally imposes new taxes–this is significant–Levin has long been against the use of succession and nullification, but his non-payment call is in effect a form of nullification.
I personally think all patriotic conservatives have to start thinking about what happens if Swillary or an Obamite or a RINO are elected in 2016–if that happens, the only way to save what’s left of the Republic may well be succession, IMHO.
We all need to reread the Declaration of Independence–http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
When you read it, many will be shocked by the similarities between 1776 and the Kingdom of Obama in which we are subjected to today.
To be a contrarian, you picked a fight on Twitter and found one. BFD.
You can’t expect MSM reporters (is BuzzFeed MSM, btw? and, are its reporters “highly paid”?)–who are all reporting on a story that Hillary played games with emails, perhaps illegallly–to admit in writing that they take it easy on the Clintons because they’re in the tank for Hillary. I mean, of course, they’re in the tank for Hillary, but at this particular moment, I don’t think they really are, and crapping on them on Twitter is not likely to get you anywhere other than angry at life.
I enjoyed your tweets though.
One of the central points of democracy is that no person should be denied an opportunity to lead because of an accident of birth. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose both Hillary and Jeb; we shouldn’t fixate on the superficial ones.
Something I have not seen mentioned here is the reason that the government, corporations and others internalize their communication systems. Mainly it is to secure the integrity of the messages. Who gets access to them, how they get backed up, how long they are retained, etc. Corporations go through a lot of time, trouble and expense for this. I don’t have any personal knowledge of the Clinton’s network infrastructure but from I can see by spending about 15 minutes on the internet with the some diagnostic tools and HC email address. It looks like at least some of their email structure is out sourced to a third party vendor (MX Logic, now part of McAfee). From what I can tell every email sent and received went through MX Logic / McAfee’s infrastructure and the whole system may have been hosted there. Such an arrangement works for small businesses but I doubt is up to DOD security requirements.
I’m sure that the Russian FSB, Iranian SAVAK and Cuban DRG were unable to hack the super duper cyber security of Hillary’s Kitchen Email Server…..
I’m not loving that acronym. I’m concerned that it might call to mind a vulgarity. It wouldn’t be one I know, of course. But I wonder if a better way to say that on Ricochet might be, “I am not persuaded that this is meaningful data.”
Of course, I wouldn’t know, because I have no idea what that might stand for. Not ringing a bell. Perhaps it was, “Best to Stick with Facts and Data,” of which I’d fully approve. I assume you meant BSFD. That’s fine.
Umbra Fractus: “One of the central points of democracy is that no person should be denied an opportunity to lead because of an accident of birth. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose both Hillary and Jeb; we shouldn’t fixate on the superficial ones.”
How is Hillary’s position an accident of birth? It is actually more of – and forgive me for being crude and possibly breaching the CoC – a function of her husband having ejaculated on an intern. Voter sympathy for her in part led to her election to the Senate which made her a more viable candidate for president and Secretary of State.
The Clintons explicitly marketed his presidency as “two for the price of one”. Having her serve as president violates the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. That is bad in and of itself, but when you add the prospect of a return to the White House of a chief executive who conducted himself in this manner – http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/09/14/affair.state.html – well, it’s not a trivial matter at all. I would say it’s quite serious, because it’s an embarrassment to the republic.
Everything you said here is 100% correct.
But it’s not what was in your original post. My “accident of birth” comment referred mainly to Jeb and meant that for good or ill every individual should be judged his/her own merits and not dismissed based on his/her last name. Now you’ve made a good case that the opposite is true, that Hillary would be nobody if not for her last name, but again, that’s not what you said in the post I responded to. You compared the prospect of any Bush vs. any Clinton to a banana republic, and that is superficial and undemocratic.
Having Hillary Clinton as a candidate or president is slightly more “banana-republic-y” than having Jeb Bush as a candidate or president, but not by much. I stand by my opinion. To me, having a parent-child dynasty is undemocratic, and even worse is a spouse-spouse dynasty because of the unique nature of the marital relationship and the fact that it returns a former president to the White House after his or her Constitutionally-allotted terms.
In short, the Bush thing to me is distasteful and would be disastrous for the Republicans, but it should not be unconstitutional. The Clinton thing should be unconstitutional. In fact, as I have said before, it would be a clever strategic move for Republican leaders to propose a Constitutional amendment to prohibit a spouse from serving as president after his or her spouse, with the stipulation that the amendment would apply to presidential elections after 2020. This would highlight the issue and might make more voters feel the way I do – that Hillary’s candidacy violates the spirit of the 22nd Amendment – and turn against her.