So, according to this story, the server was physically in her house. I wonder who actually set it up? It’s hard to imagine her being able to do it.
[Update a while later]
Why you should care about Hillary’s email:
A spokesman for Clinton says that her actions comply with the “letter and spirit of the rules.” To put it kindly, this seems to be complete nonsense. Federal officials are not supposed to have private e-mail silos that are their sole means of official digital communication and are reviewed only by their personal staff. And that should apply doubly to the holder of one of the most important cabinet roles. Moreover, the fact that she never even got a State Department address certainly gives the impression that this was a deliberate attempt to avoid the public eye. She didn’t just sloppily default to her own personal e-mail address, as many people do; she also made sure that it was not possible to accidentally send her an e-mail on a work account that government oversight groups could access.
Even more troubling is the fact that a large number of people in the White House and the State Department must have known that she was using a private address that wouldn’t leave copies on government servers. Why didn’t any of them gently suggest that this was not OK?
If this were a normal campaign, Clinton’s primary opponents would be cackling with glee as they fired up the oppo cannon. But this is not a normal primary season, and Democrats will instead devote their time to coming up with excuses for her behavior, or reasons that it’s really not a big deal that the secretary of state structured her communications to avoid leaving a checkable record. They have to, because jettisoning Hillary Clinton at this point would almost certainly mean losing the race in 2016. She has drawn in all the donor funds and media attention that would normally have been spread among several candidates. There is no one ready to step into that vacuum, and it is already too late to start grooming someone new.
As in the nineties, the Democrats’ utter contempt for us, and the rule of law, is palpable. That’s when I resolved I’d never vote for one again, under any circumstances.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Mark Steyn, and Jonah Goldberg:
Mrs. Clinton weighed in to somewhat greater effect. She tweeted, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
This was a reference to the “55,000 pages” of e-mails Clinton handed over to the State Department in response to a request. It’s also a classic bit of misdirection. Among the swirling issues at play is whether Clinton handed over all of her official business e-mails as required. (The State Department offers no clarity on this.) The whole point of having your own private server is that no one can check to make sure you didn’t selectively delete or withhold e-mails.
The number of pages is also meaningless. First, if you’ve ever printed out e-mail, you know that “pages” and “e-mails” are not synonymous terms. But even if they were, so what? I could release 99.99 percent of all my e-mails, and you’d see little more than boring work product, press releases, spam, and appeals from Nigerian oil ministers. My incriminating stuff could remain invisible — valuable snowflakes held back from a blizzard of chaff. If you don’t think the Clintons are capable of such legerdemain, I refer you to the Clinton-inspired debate over billing records and the meaning of “is.”
This points to another reason why I think Clinton will survive this mess. If there’s a damning e-mail out there, it’s been deleted, and the relevant hard drive would be harder to find than Jimmy Hoffa’s body. So critics are probably left with the task of proving a negative.
It’s worth noting, though, that given the apparent insecurity of the system, it’s likely that someone has incriminating emails. Maybe even Vladimir Putin.
[Mid-morning update]
Bruce Webster still isn’t convinced that the server was in the house. I haven’t seen any good evidence of it myself. As he notes, if true, this has implications for subpoenas. I should note that I have several domains, that I host on a server which is also my email server. But it’s a hundred miles away.
Story’s from Wednesday; at this point pretty sure it was Eric Hothem. Jonah and Steyn from today. Kind of curious if we’ll ever get an idea what mau_suit@clintonemail.com refers to.
Through the power of Google I found a possible connection. There was a significant lawsuit connected with the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the decade before it achieved independence.
Here’s how Obama’s grandfather was involved:
Sounds like Clinton might be monitoring this lawsuit because of Obama’s family history.
But don’t dare call Obama anti-colonialist.
(I note that once again I am not seeing comments that are apparently here.)
“What difference at this point does it make?” Kind of a useful all-purpose brush-off; she could try that here.
I especially think it’s neat how Clinton used it for the kinds of thing where the opposition thinks it makes a big difference. Sort of: I first insist that you accept my view of the situation. Once you do that, you’ll see that I don’t have to answer your question, even if the answer might show that my view of the situation is not true.
Her full quote at the time: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Note the two choices she offers.
I guess I hold a minority opinion: I believe Hillary Clinton is actually very easy to beat in 2016, despite the friendly, coronating media. All it requires is a Republican willing to fight on his own terms. The Clintons have never seen that.
Yeah. Good luck.
And, by the way, Jim, I’d say that this qualifies as an Obama scandal.
He’s busy norman-coordinating. I imagine network congestion has increased somewhat in the past few days.
MSNBC: we don’t need no stinkin hacks
they’re sending out hacks right now saying really stupid things that are insulting to all of us
Well, as far as saying really stupid things that are insulting, you’re pretty expert at that.
My reading of this is that she wasn’t trying to hide the emails from the public, but trying to hide them from Obama. She is well aware of what the administration can do to the internal government email system, and she has seen many people that have worked with him, thrown under the bus. (ie: Petraeus) So the first thing she did when placed at State, was to secure her internal communications, outside the grasp’s of her frienemy.
The invisiblity from a FOIA request was just an added bonus.
“She has drawn in all the donor funds and media attention that would normally have been spread among several candidates.”
But also all of the attacks. No one is talking about other candidates, not because they don’t exist but because A) Hillary makes a good punching bag and B) The GOP makes a good punching bag. (Mostly B) It’s early, more candidates will show up and Clinton will still be there.
“It’s worth noting, though, that given the apparent insecurity of the system, it’s likely that someone has incriminating emails. Maybe even Vladimir Putin”
All of our geopolitical friends and foes have extensive cyberwarfare capabilities, part of which is spying. It is highly likely they have all read Hillary’s correspondence just like it is highly likely they have penetrated other government systems and agencies.
Of course they have Woden. They’ve been educated by our finest schools.
“The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we hang them.” Lenin said that.
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.” Bob Dylan said that.
” What difference at this point does it make?” The loser said that.