Hillary confesses … that she did nothing wrong …

Are you surprised? If you are, you haven’t been paying attention. Hillary is another one of our elite democrat leaders who NEVER does anything wrong.

In fact, the last time she did anything wrong was in 1974, when she was relieved of her work on the Watergate investigation committee. Some said that it was because “she was a liar and was an unethical, dishonest lawyer and conspired to violate the Constitution.”

And Bill never did anything wrong either (except for lying about those spots on Monica’s blue dress) because the Clintons are not subject to the same rules as we mere mortals.

In this latest Clintonian saga, she has not been forthcoming about the email minefield she wandered into and is now trying to navigate without blowing up her 2016 coronation.

Today she held a press conference wherein she attempted to convince the public that she followed all of the rules and only used her personal email because it was more “convenient.” So her convenience trumped national security and she continued to use an unsafe private server.

She also maintained that she turned over to the State Department all of the emails that the regulations required.

Here are a couple of things she could have done to fix her ‘problems,” she could have accessed both her personal and State emails on a single device. She could have used email forwarding to automatically forward a copy of her personal emails to the State system.

She was careful to say that she never SENT any classified emails from her personal account, she didn’t say that she never RECEIVED any – words matter to a Clinton, you must carefully parse each and every word.

Her aides sent out a nine-page document that showed that Hillary sent and received a total of 62,320 emails during the March 2009 through February 2013 timeframe. Of those, she sent 30,490 to the State Department. There is NO way to verify that since she didn’t send 30,000 emails, instead she sent 55,000 PAGES of printed data. Why? Because the printed pages can’t easily be searched for a term or phrase like electronic records can.

She admits to deleting 31,830 messages and says that ALL of them were related to personal matters (Chelsea’s wedding, her mom’s funeral, yoga routines, and family vacations).

No one in their right mind could believe that. Think about that statement: maybe a couple of hundred for the wedding, a hundred for her mom’s funeral, a hundred yoga routines (?), and a couple thousand for family vacations. What were the other 30,000 or so about?

Hillary says, “trust me.”

I respond, “bullshit.”

Hillary said that she was using a server that was originally configured for Bill, and as such, would have been fitted out with robust security. Some reports have characterized it as a “homebrew” server. It wasn’t linked to the State Department, but was a standalone unit located at the couple’s Chappaqua, NY residence, where Hillary says, it came under the physical protection of the Secret Service. Hillary maintains that there was no evidence that it had ever been compromised.

Whew! That’s a relief, I feel so much better now that Hillary told us the facts.

There’s only one problem; Hillary left out a few teeny, tiny details.

Let’s look at the security that Hillary provided for State Department emails to which she was a party – at least “sensitive” if not “confidential” ones.

First, any United States Secretary of State (SOS) is a very “high value target” from the viewpoint of bad actors, particularly nation-state ones. She was one of the top tier individuals who would handle the most important, most sensitive, and most potentially damaging information relating the United States’ foreign activity – and therefore be of immense interest to foreign intelligence services.

Hillary made a choice to conduct her duties as SOS using a personal account kept on a server at her home, and NOT a secure government provided and maintained account, and by doing so, she put national security at risk.

She maintained that her email was secure, but evidence shows that it was not. She was using Network Solutions (a consumer-grade hosting company) to host the Clintonemail.com domain.

Domain history for hillarys emails

If you’re someone that is concerned about security of your data, you don’t go and register your domain name with a consumer-oriented registrar like Network Solutions or GoDaddy,” said Bill Sweetman, a domain registration expert based in Canada who describes himself as part of the “left-leaning camp.”

Sweetman isn’t alone in thinking this.

Rod Rasmussen, a leading expert on the abuse of domain name systems, wrote in a 2013 column for the trade publication Security Week, that any domain managers using a consumer-grade registrar for a “major enterprise” should lose their jobs.

Rasmussen wrote the piece after Network Solutions was hacked in 2010, resulting in thousands of domains being transferred to Confluence Networks, a domain registrar traced to the British Virgin Islands. Kinda like this:

Domain history for hillarys emails 2

Computer World reported in 2010 that throughout the course of the hack attack, users of up to 50 domains hosted by Network Solutions were redirected to a Ukrainian attack server.

So, it’s beyond question that Hillary’s server was susceptible to hacking and just because she says it wasn’t, doesn’t mean that it was not accessed. It’s very likely that she wouldn’t know if it had been compromised.

Wouldn’t the Russians, North Koreans, and Iranians have been very interested in the communications that Hillary had with her staff and other world leaders about diplomatic topics and tactics? Wouldn’t that information given them an edge in any negotiations?

So the susceptibility of Clintonemail.com to hacking was much greater than Hillary would have us believe. While there is (so far) no evidence that her account WAS hacked, the susceptibility of her government emails on that commercially hosted server was not up to State Department standards and put national security at risk.

Hillary appears to still be under the impression that any government business that was transacted using her personal email account created records that belong to her. She is wrong; those records belong to the State Department (and us, the citizens).

She also said that she will not (voluntarily) permit access to the server in order to verify her statements regarding the content of the deleted emails.

As Bill O’Reilly (the egotistical blowhard) said tonight, she could allow a disinterested, objective third party to conduct a forensic examination of her server and either confirm or refute her contention that she deleted NO government-owned emails. Problem solved.

But she won’t agree to that. Those of us with a long-term memory of Hillary’s transgressions don’t trust her and her actions have only reinforced our belief that she can’t be trusted with anything, especially the keys to the White House.

NOTE: the images and some content came from The Blaze.

Garnet92

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Hillary confesses … that she did nothing wrong …

  1. jstefano1 says:

    Like him or not, O’Reilly provided a service by suggesting an impartial third party forensic tech expert to examine Clinton’s server. To the average low-info voter, it sounds very reasonable, and Clinton’s certain refusal to allow such an examination will be seen as unreasonable on her part. So she’s in a box. She loses if she doesn’t turn over the server, and she loses if she does turn over the server when the secrets she’s covering up are revealed. he will never allow examination of the server. She’ll drop out of the race first.

    • Garnet92 says:

      You’re right jstefano, and even though I have issues with O’Reilly, I still tune in to his show ’cause he does have interesting guests. You make a valid point that his suggestion is reasonable and makes Hillary look bad if/when she refuses. She stepped into “it,” about piano-legs deep when she chose to use a private server and her “answers” yesterday were less than forthcoming. She’s continuing to dig herself deeper and deeper into a morass from which I don’t think she can emerge without being covered with the taint of lies and deceit.

      And, I’m also on board with your comment that she may well decide that, due to “health issues,” she will spend more time with her family and decline to run.

      Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.

  2. Uriel says:

    Don’t forget Garnet SHE sent emails out to all staffers saying ONLY use government servers for government mail. So even then she is hoist from her own flagpole as She was well aware of policy.

    • Garnet92 says:

      There is a good 35-cent word that describes Hillary perfectly: duplicitous (deceitful and treacherous). She’ll lie when the truth wouldn’t hurt her just to stay in practice. Yes, she was fully aware of the restrictions that she was flaunting, but retaining full control of her communications was more important – after all, she couldn’t have those pesky congressional committees and FOIA requests have access to her shenanigans, could she?

  3. Kathy says:

    It’s insulting for her to talk like it’s no big deal and be so blasé’ about what could have been a huge security breach. As you said Garnet, it could happen without her knowing it. She said this system was set up mainly for Bill’s use – I find it astounding that Bill just so happened to need a system the day she became SoS.

    I disagree with O’Reilly’s suggestion to have a disinterested third party examine it because it’s likely there’s no one who’s disinterested. Anyone qualified to do that will either love her or hate her and possibly slant the findings accordingly.

    Does her statement change anything legally? IMO, this in no way gets her off the hook.

  4. Garnet92 says:

    O’Reilly actually suggested the FBI look at her server. Of course, with Holder in charge, I’d never rely on them finding that there was no harm done. They’re all part of this “gang of thieves” that are running our government (into the ground) and they’ll collude and conspire to protect each other because if one of them gets caught, he/she may well bring the others down too.

    I agree that nothing she said gets her off the hook and in many ways, she just opened the door into her criminal activity another few inches. She’s in deep doodoo, for sure.

  5. Garnet92 says:

    I just had to add another thought.

    Why would she have deleted all of her emails of Chelsea’s wedding, her mom’s funeral, etc.? Those were obviously personal and wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows, they could have safely remained on the server and caused her no pain at all. In fact, as a matter of the family’s personal and private remembrances, I would have thought that she would NOT want to delete those.

    Personally, I think that identifying those thousands of deleted emails as being sensitive and personal was a way to cover up the real content of those emails. They weren’t wedding and funeral arrangements, they contained incriminating evidence.

  6. CW says:

    Good work, Garnet!

    I saw a portion of her press conference and was appalled by her attitude towards the press. She all but rolled her eyes at the questioning. She had to keep checking her notes to make sure she gave her answers exactly as she had rehearsed them, LOL. The tone of the press conference was in perfect keeping with the substance – she is above the law.

    I sure hope republicans can sue for access on the basis that this is the only source of her communications records and those belong to the people. I don’t understand why they can’t, but history shows that leftists are adept at abusing the law and getting away with it.

  7. Garnet92 says:

    Thanks CW. I heard Gowdy say that he doesn’t have the power to seize her server, but that the House does. I’ll be interested to see when they choose to do that – but I won’t hold my breath.

  8. Bullright says:

    Good write-up. In other words, it wouldn’t matter if she had armed guards standing over it, and secret service. She should have consulted Ariana Huffington at least.

    Then she says that no classified info was on it. Nope. Well, how would she have kept it off? Was there a rule. But we know she must be telling the truth, right? (wink)

    • Bullright says:

      You know, it might be that an Inspector General would have honed in on the problems with Hillary’s servergate? Well, that is if we had one when she was there.

  9. Clyde says:

    Good piece, Garnet. Anyone think THIS shit was NOT done on purpose is too stupid to breathe. Those “foreign entities” that contributed HEAVILY to Bill, and Hillary, along with the BECS, GOT their “return on investment”. Think “you’ve got mail”.