Email server in the house, political blood in the water

Email server in the house, political blood in the water

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal gets worse by the day.

First, the NY Times broke the story of Hillary’s exclusive use of personal email account, raising serious security issues in addition to record keeping issues.  Then WaPo broke that Hillary set up her own email domain.

The White House appears ready to abandon her on the issue:

AP reports that Hillary had her own email server in her house:

The email practices of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state, grew more intriguing with the disclosure Wednesday that the computer server she used traced back to her family’s New York home, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official running her own email server would have given Clinton — who is expected to run for president in the 2016 campaign — significant control over limiting access to her message archives.

It also would complicate the State Department’s legal responsibilities in finding and turning over official emails in response to any investigations, lawsuits or public records requests. The department would be the position of accepting Clinton’s assurances she was surrendering everything required that was in her control.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi is issuing new subpoenas.

And Judicial Watch wants to know why none of this was disclosed in response to prior FOIA requests and litigation representations by the government:

The leader of Judicial Watch reacted angrily Tuesday to word that Clinton’s own emails may have escaped scrutiny in the years of litigation the organization has pursued against the State Department over Benghazi and other issues.

“It’s a reckless approach to hiding material from the public,” said Tom Fitton. “We have dozens of FOIA requests and well over a dozen federal lawsuits in which this information is directly relevant. The government has never told us about this. In fact, in some cases they told us they looked through [Clinton’s] office and there was nothing to be found.”

Dem operatives in and outside the media — led by David Brock and Media Matters — are defending Hillaryas if this was another of Bill’s Bimbo Eruptions.

But there seems to be a sense of blood in the water from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

I noticed how Gawker is playing investigative reporter trying to nail Hillary:

Gawker also is trying to bring the infamous Mrs. Anthony Weiner into the story:

MSNBC is swarming, via WaPo, MSNBC has actually covered the Hillary Clinton e-mail story more than Fox News (so far) (h/t @allapundit):

When the New York Times reported Monday night that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private e-mail account during her time as secretary of state rather than a government one, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow broke into her regularly-scheduled show to mention the story on air. In the next hour, Lawrence O’Donnell also talked about the story.

That MSNBC jumped on the news so quickly goes against what some conservatives on Twitter were saying in the story’s aftermath, that the media would minimize Clinton’s e-mail use, which violated specific Obama administration’s policy.

In fact, according to a review of transcripts of cable news shows from 9 p.m. on Monday, shortly before the story was published, to 9 p.m. Tuesday, MSNBC used the word “e-mail,” “e-mails,” “e-mailed,” or “e-mailing” in stories about Clinton more than CNN or Fox News….

And lest you think MSNBC spent those 669 uses of the word “e-mail” defending Clinton, you can watch Maddow’s segment when the story was published Monday and “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski interview with former pro-Clinton PAC Priorities USA Action member and Media Matters founder David Brock Wednesday morning (“I’m not sure what planet I’m on right now,” Brzezinski said, stunned by Brock’s answers to questions about the e-mail account. “Are you reading the same thing we are?”).

This may be the opportunity Liz Warren has been waiting for. She never definitively refused to run, and has kept her options open while sniping at Hillary for not being sufficiently progressive:

Liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that she’s waiting to see how progressive a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would be.

Asked by the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” whether Clinton would be a “progressive warrior,” Warren didn’t exactly give a ringing endorsement.

“You know, I think that’s what we gotta see,” Warren said. “I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That’s what campaigns are supposed to be about.”

Hillary is floundering, and the progressive sharks are circling. All Liz has to say is “attack.”

The improbable may be possible. It’s happened before.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.