Hillary wonders: Why is a State Department employee using personal e-mail?

posted at 8:41 am on January 8, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Denial, hubris, or just plain dumb? John Dickerson reports, you decide, but at the very least it’s a stunning example of utter hypocrisy. A newly released e-mail from Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail system shows the Secretary of State wondering why anyone in her organization would be communicating via private e-mail.

Come on, man:

hillary-email

“I was surprised he used personal email account if he is at State,” replied the woman over her personal, secret, and unsecured personal e-mail system. Alternate response: How dare our employees follow my example?

This does raise an interesting point, even beyond the royal hubris of this message. It shows pretty clearly that the use of personal e-mail was unusual enough that even Hillary herself commented on it. That would debunk her oft-repeated claim that using personal e-mail was both allowed and unremarkable. If that was the case, then why is Hillary remarking on it here over a private e-mail system?

Note too that the e-mail is marked classified. This comes from a new tranche of 2,900 e-mails released overnight by the State Department. Forty-five of these messages contained classified information, including one classified as Secret:

State Department officials released roughly 2,900 pages of Hillary Clinton’s private emails early Friday morning, several hours past their target of late Thursday evening.

State first set a broad target of somewhere between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. Thursday. But as the night wore on, that shifted to a 2 a.m. estimate. They were finally released right around 1 a.m.

The late release was on top of State’s failure to release all the emails by New Year’s Eve. Instead of releasing everything on Dec. 31, State said it needed another few days to finish the group of Clinton messages.

The new batch of records contains 45 classified messages, including one that was upgraded to “secret,” a higher level of classification. Last week, the agency published a batch of emails that contained 275 classified records, raising further questions about Clinton’s prior remarks that none of her emails included classified information — she has said none were classified at the time the emails were sent.

That brings us up to a total of 1,044 e-mails containing classified information, many of which were copied or addressed to Hillary herself. This is one of the reasons we’re all “surprised” that Hillary used a personal e-mail account, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bloody infuriating and Loretta won’t do a thing about

cmsinaz on January 8, 2016 at 8:43 AM

She should already be on house arrest.

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 8:43 AM

Indict her already….and Huma too….

thedevilinside on January 8, 2016 at 8:44 AM

If she becomes President the US truly deserves her.

Crux Australis on January 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM

Indict her already….and Huma too….

thedevilinside on January 8, 2016 at 8:44 AM

This only happens if:

1. A US Attorney and a FBI investigator in this case go rouge and bypass Loretta (should be) Lynched.

2. Obama wants to remain in office, and the indictment gives him a (lame) excuse to cancel the election “out of fairness”.

ConstantineXI on January 8, 2016 at 8:52 AM

Rules for thee but not for me.

Occams Stubble on January 8, 2016 at 8:52 AM

Denial, hubris, or just plain dumb?

Yes.

rbj on January 8, 2016 at 8:53 AM

If she becomes President the US truly deserves her.

Crux Australis on January 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM

If she becomes President the revolution happens before 2020.

ConstantineXI on January 8, 2016 at 8:53 AM

You can’t make this stuff up

gerrym51 on January 8, 2016 at 8:54 AM

Denial, hubris, or just plain dumb? John Dickerson reports, you decide, but at the very least it’s a stunning example of utter hypocrisy

None of the above. Blue lives in a world where the laws that apply to we little people simply don’t apply. In her mind she sees nothing untoward about chiding a State Department employee for using a personal email account for official correspondence.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2016 at 8:55 AM

A nation wonders: Why isn’t this felon indicted yet?

NotCoach on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

If she becomes President the US truly deserves her.

Crux Australis on January 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM

Ditto a President Trump.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

She had the State tech boys send the employee some dust busters to wipe the emails off the drive.

Limerick on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

I’m starting to think she may have some sort of long term medical issue with her brain.

Fenris on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

I appreciate Ed keeping on top of this, but the bottom line, except for Ed getting his opinion into the historical record, in regards to Hillary, nothing is going to come of any of this.

It’s a dead issue. Just like Benghazi is a dead issue. Just like any of Hillary’s f;k-up’s.

The media, the Democrats and this administration is all covering for her, actually, it’s not covering for her, it’s just plain, outright collaboration with her to make sure she gets elected.

Meh.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 8:57 AM

Just wait for the endgame.

The final FBI presser.

There needs to be changes but there was certainly nothing criminal.

artist on January 8, 2016 at 8:58 AM

then why is Hillary remarking on it here over a private e-mail system?

…because she’s a power hungry Skank who thinks she’s above the law…us lowly peasants are simply here to serve her…

Pelosi Schmelosi on January 8, 2016 at 8:59 AM

Indict her already….and Huma too….

thedevilinside on January 8, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Please.

Too big to prosecute.

PackerBronco on January 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM

Ditto a President Trump.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

We can only hope we deserve a President Trump.

AJsDaddie on January 8, 2016 at 9:03 AM

She should be in Leavenworth.
Tonight.

Galtian on January 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM

Mediaite staff just laughing it off

Cripe

cmsinaz on January 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM

If Hillary wins, the White House will become a money laundering facility the likes of which no one has ever seen

fogw on January 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM

What I love about Hillary is how she got a child rapist off the hook by blaming the victim and then laughed about it.

John the Libertarian on January 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM

“We’re letting you know right now: if Hillary is elected, impeachment is off the table.”

— Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan

ShainS on January 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM

If Hillary wins, the White House will become a money laundering facility the likes of which no one has ever seen

fogw on January 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM

It already is!

Our Oligarhic Political Class ™ is not there for the Senate lunches.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 9:09 AM

If she gets off Scott free then the rule of law is kaput. Smart defense lawyers should start using that as an example to get their clients off of any crime.If she is not guilty then no one is.

docflash on January 8, 2016 at 9:10 AM

If she was not running for President she would be in jail…

albill on January 8, 2016 at 9:10 AM

OT: NRA says they were offered one pre-screened question for Obammy’s so-called ‘town hall’ last night. That’s why they demurred.

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 9:12 AM

A nation wonders: Why isn’t this felon indicted yet?

NotCoach on January 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM

Our side should start prefacing every reference to her with the term “unindicted co-conspirator”

ShainS on January 8, 2016 at 9:13 AM

Yeah, cuz that would be illegal or something. Was that other employee fired,
reprimanded or none of the above?

Did Killary maintain that secret server to receive classified emails that could be sold if the info they contained was worth a lot to the highest bidder? We all know from previous experience that the biggest money grubbers on the planet, Bill and Hill, sold secrets in the past while fund raising for his campaign. So, this could have been a continuation of past practice. She has to fund her campaign. Deep down she really, really, really wants to be the first woman president and will do anything to get it done.

Kissmygrits on January 8, 2016 at 9:19 AM

Mais, L’etat C’est Moi!

Fleuries on January 8, 2016 at 9:22 AM

The oath Hillary and Loretta Lynch took:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM

I created a short summary of her greatest hits (issues): emailgate/server gate seems like it’s a nasty crime, and she should be made an example of (Petreus her). But there’s just so, so many to choose from:

[email protected] on January 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM

<

blockquote>The oath Hillary and Loretta Lynch took:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM

This oath has no meaning and not enforceable.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM

[email protected]
[email protected]

Why does a confused Grandma have multiple email addresses?

She asks some questions via [email protected] and then others via [email protected], was she even aware of that?

Also why is her name just ‘H’ on all of them?

Even Huma Weiner is using her full name.

mudskipper on January 8, 2016 at 9:41 AM

It also means that Hillary was aware in 2011 that State employees were using private email to discuss classified information. And more importantly, that she did nothing to correct it.

SonoOfBreitbart on January 8, 2016 at 9:49 AM

This oath has no meaning and not enforceable.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM

Not to mention that everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie.
Obama too.

leftamark on January 8, 2016 at 9:52 AM

If she was not running for President A Republican she would be in jail…

albill on January 8, 2016 at 9:10 AM

kirkill on January 8, 2016 at 9:53 AM

This oath has no meaning and not enforceable.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM

If you violate that oath by advocating the overthrow of constitutional government, you’re in violation of 18 U.S.C 1918 and 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Penalties include removal from office, imprisonment, or fine.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM

I can’t even keep track anymore (which is probably part of the strategy), but these emails are from the State Dept. Has anyone released any of the deleted emails that may have been recovered from the “wiped” servers/hard drives yet?

Vigilante on January 8, 2016 at 10:04 AM

5 U.S. Code § 7311 – Loyalty and striking

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.

18 U.S. Code § 1918 – Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—

(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM

If you violate that oath by advocating the overthrow of constitutional government, you’re in violation of 18 U.S.C 1918 and 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Penalties include removal from office, imprisonment, or fine.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Really?

Not going to happen in your lifetime.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 10:23 AM

The person in question also had a family ‘coundation’ for which he accepted ‘contributions’ for doing his job.

Wait till Hillary finds out!

Deafdog on January 8, 2016 at 10:51 AM

“Rules are for plebes.”

–Queen Cankles the First

orangemtl on January 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Let me try again… here was Hillary’s greatest hits: http://igeek.com/1157

Last time it seemed to block the link?

[email protected] on January 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Does anyone else think something is screwed up with the email thread?

Sullivan forwarded the email message to “H” on Sunday, Feb 27 at 5:41 PM. “H” responded, using the [email protected] account on Monday, Feb 28 at 1:03 AM asking who the guy works for (she was working late, if seems). Sullivan then responded on Sunday, Feb 27 at 7:04 PM that the guys works for “us”. He responded to “H” six hours before she asked the question. Even Radar O’Reilly wasn’t that good. Then “H” responds, using the [email protected] account, wondering why the guys was using a personal email account just minutes after the Sullivan answer.

There are four possible explanations:

(1) The servers hosting the two email accounts ([email protected] and [email protected]) were in different locations (hence the six hour time difference) or one of them had the wrong time on the internal “clock”.

(2) Sullivan and “H” were in two different time zones at the time of the emails (assuming the top, second, and third emails were sent in quick succession). If Sullivan was in Washington, “H” would have to have been in the Paris, France time zone. But that doesn’t explain how the top email could have been sent by “H” five hours and 54 minutes before she sent the Monday, Feb 28 email at 1:03 AM.

(3) Someone besides “H” is able to read and respond to the emails. The Monday, 28 Feb email could have been sent by Huma or someone six time zones east of Sullivan and “H” (Huma was “cc’ed” in te first emai) using the [email protected] account, then the real “H” chimed at 7:09 PM with the top email using the [email protected] account.

(4) Someone at State “doctored” the emails and screwed up on the date and times.

(5) “H” is able to teleport. She was six hours east of Sullivan when she sent the Monday, Feb 28 1:03 AM email, then teleported back to the same time zone as Sullivan and sent the Sunday, Feb 27 7:09 PM email using a different email account.

Which is it?

Also, how and why did the email thread jump from the [email protected] to the [email protected] account, unless Sullivan also “bcc’ed” “H” to the other account. Or someone else was using the accounts, as described above.

Enquiring minds want to know.

GAlpha10 on January 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM

1. A US Attorney and a FBI investigator in this case go rouge and bypass Loretta (should be) Lynched.

ConstantineXI on January 8, 2016 at 8:52 AM

They would go red? I guess that would be ordering the Code Red on HRC, huh?

GWB on January 8, 2016 at 11:21 AM

GAlpha10 on January 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM

The “sent” header is generated using local time of the e-mail client (outlook client?). We’d need the “received” headers to see the timestamps applied by the various servers handling the e-mail. The “received” headers would supply us information concerning the internal and external networks used, and Microsoft’s client does not display them unless they are explicitly requested.

unclesmrgol on January 8, 2016 at 11:51 AM

We have yet to plumb the depths of this woman’s dumb.

Another Drew on January 8, 2016 at 11:55 AM

The FBI will wrap up its so nvestigation in 2 months and recommend indictments against 6 or more people, including Hillary. The DoJ will then start its own investigation that runs approximately forever, or as long as it takes to make the whole issue moot. If Hillary loses the 2016 election the incitement can go forward or she can get a presidential pardon. If she wins, she can give herself a pardon anyway.

Fred 2 on January 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM

unclesmrgol on January 8, 2016 at 11:51 AM

I understand how Outlook and Microsoft Exchange datestamps work. I use both every day.

The question is not when the messages were received, but who actually sent them and why the time sequence is out of order.

Its not a big deal, but brings into question the validity of what State is providing.

Unless the servers where the two email addresses being used are not in the same location and not in the same time zone (which brings into question how many servers she had scattered around), there’s no way the datestamps on the email trail would be out of chronological order. Unless one “H” was not actually “H” and answered on Monday, Feb 28 at 1:03 AM from somewhere in the Paris time zone, and the real “H” answered at 7:09 PM on Sunday, 27 Feb, or vice versa. Or someone at State is cobbling the emails together.

GAlpha10 on January 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM

I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Younggod on January 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM

This oath has no meaning and not enforceable.

Walter L. Newton on January 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM

All oaths have meaning

Sir Thomas More: When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.

This includes the ones taken by the foresworn, and especially by the people who knew going in that they had no intention of fulfilling the oath.

God does not enforce oaths taken in His name the way we would, but He will not be mocked.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

I note that Hillary never intended any of these emails to ever see the light — but they have.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 6:01 PM

GAlpha10 on January 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM

The “sent” header is generated using local time of the e-mail client (outlook client?). We’d need the “received” headers to see the timestamps applied by the various servers handling the e-mail. The “received” headers would supply us information concerning the internal and external networks used, and Microsoft’s client does not display them unless they are explicitly requested.

unclesmrgol on January 8, 2016 at 11:51 AM

I understand how Outlook and Microsoft Exchange datestamps work. I use both every day.

The question is not when the messages were received, but who actually sent them and why the time sequence is out of order.

Its not a big deal, but brings into question the validity of what State is providing.

Unless the servers where the two email addresses being used are not in the same location and not in the same time zone (which brings into question how many servers she had scattered around), there’s no way the datestamps on the email trail would be out of chronological order. Unless one “H” was not actually “H” and answered on Monday, Feb 28 at 1:03 AM from somewhere in the Paris time zone, and the real “H” answered at 7:09 PM on Sunday, 27 Feb, or vice versa. Or someone at State is cobbling the emails together.

GAlpha10 on January 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Interesting questions – if there is ever an investigation or trial, someone might look into it.

Aren’t the emails still being searched via the paper copies H delivered to State, or are they searching the “cleaned up” electronic version or something else?
I’m getting confused about the details, but there is more than enough here to send any peon to jail for approximately forever.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 6:06 PM