We told you so: the interests of the working class are not what the Democrats think they are!

From Investor’s Business Daily:

Working Class Gives Up On Obama, Fears Job Losses
By John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily | 03/10/2015 04:45 PM ET

Click to enlarge

In what could be a significant opening for the Republican Party, working-class Americans have largely abandoned President Obama and rejected his economic policies as they continue to suffer from the historically weak economic recovery, a new analysis of IBD/TIPP Poll data finds.By wide margins, this group is more likely than any other income class to say the country is headed in the wrong direction, the economy is getting worse, and they fear losing their jobs.

Just 36% approve of the job that Obama is doing, compared with 43% overall, and vast majorities say his policies haven’t helped the middle class.

Over the past two months, IBD has asked people to identify themselves as upper class, upper-middle class, middle class, working class or lower class.

Read the rest here.

The First Street Journal has addressed this issue previously.

The IBD/TIPP poll found pretty much the opposite of what President Obama had predicted, and what the left expect: the left are continually amazed that poorer Americans, that the working class,1 do not support their policy prescriptions, but that is exactly what the poll indicates.2 The middle and upper-middle classes are more supportive of the President’s economic policies than the working class, which would seem the obvious result of those groups being economically successful in the economy today. The left claim that the economy is doing well, in part because the stock market was recently at an all-time high, and remains close to that today. That is true enough, but the working class are the ones least likely to be taking much advantage of that. It’s great that 401(k) plans are doing well . . . if you have a 401(k). Low interest rates have helped people in the housing market, which is great, if you are well off enough to consider buying a home. The official unemployment rate looks a lot better, if you aren’t one of those people who used to be in the work force, but have dropped out because you haven’t been able to find a job in a year.3

The IBD/TIPP poll indicated widespread dissatisfaction among the working class for the Democrats’ economic policies pretty much across the board: on immigration, on taxes, even on the Affordable Care Act.  The policies that the left tout as being aimed at helping poorer Americans are most strongly opposed by poorer Americans:

More than half (55%) of the working class even oppose Obama’s call for raising taxes on wealthy Americans “to pay for programs that help lower and middle class families” if it “results in fewer jobs.” Just 48% in the middle class feel this way.

The Democrats would say that they just haven’t communicated their message well enough, but I believe that the answer is different: the highly sophisticated Democratic leadership have had all of the common sense educated right out of them, while poorer Americans retain it.

What the working class really see is something we have pointed out previously: the Democrats cannot be both the party of the working man and the party of the non-working man. Working Americans know that they are being taxed more, are having to work longer and harder, to support other Americans who will not work to support themselves, but who are perfectly satisfied living off entitlements.

The left do not understand this, but we have told them and told them and told them: what the left see as the better interests of the working class, and what working class people themselves see as being in their better interests are very, very different things. The IBD/TIPP poll simply quantifies it . . . as did the 2014 elections!
________________________

  1. Investopedia defines “working class” as “A socioeconomic term used to describe persons in a social class marked by jobs that provide low pay, require limited skill and/or physical labor, and have reduced education requirements.” It continues to state that “Unemployed persons or those supported by a social welfare program are often included in this group,” but The First Street Journal holds that there is a difference between working class and non-working class. Other definitions can be found, but they are fairly unified on the concept that the working class are, primarily, those without higher education, who rely on manual labor to provide an income. Your Editor disagrees: he defines working class as those people who have to work for a living, and takes no distinction based upon the kind of work that they do, because he holds that all (legal) work is honorable and praiseworthy.
  2. We have previously noted that, despite what the official economic numbers might say, polls indicate that 72% of the public believe that we are still in a recession.
  3. The U-3 Unemployment Rate, the one which gets the most attention in the media and the one the President touts, was 5.5% for February of 2015, seasonally adjusted, 5.8% not seasonally adjusted, but the U-6 Unemployment Rate was 11.0% seasonally adjusted, 11.4% non-adjusted. U-6 is defined as “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” while “Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.” The source is Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization, but the data are updated monthly, and the table may not show the same information as when it was used on March 12, 2015.

Kathleen Kane: the appearance of impropriety

From the Philadelphia Daily News:

Kane ‘cautiously hopeful’ after Pa. Supreme Court hearing
David Gambacorta, Daily News Staff Writer gambacd@phillynews.com, 215-854-5994 | Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2015, 12:16 AM

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane leaves Philadelphia City Hall after Pennsylvania Supreme Court argument hearing on Mar. 11, 2015. ( ALEJANDRO A. ALVAREZ / Staff Photographer) Click to enlarge.

The curious case of Kathleen Kane took center stage in Philadelphia yesterday.

The state Supreme Court heard spirited arguments in a packed City Hall courtroom over whether a grand-jury investigation into Kane, the state’s first female attorney general, had unfolded on sound legal ground.

Read more here.

Detailing the legal problems of Attorney General Kane would quote far more of the Daily News article than I believe is reasonable under fair use guidelines. But yesterday’s court hearing boils down to this: the Attorney General isn’t claiming (in this venue) that the charges are false or unjustified, but that charges should not be brought1 because the wrong person investigated them.

Translation: she’s trying to get off on a technicality.

I am reminded of a thought I had last night, whilst thinking about Hillary Clinton’s current problems: am I the only one who remembers how the Democrats were telling us that even the appearance of impropriety had to be avoided, and investigated if found?

  1. The special prosecutor recommended that charges be brought, but the Supreme Court barred that action until after it decided on whether the appointment of a special prosecutor was within the authority of Montgomery County Judge William Carpenter in the first place.

Hillary Clinton lies to us again

From the editors of The Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton’s use of private e-mail reflects poor judgment
By Editorial Board March 4

Hillary Rodham Clinton has served as first lady, a senator from New York and secretary of state. She is no newcomer to the corridors of power. Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.

It reflects poor judgement on the part of the former Secretary of State? Well, yes, it does, but Mrs Clinton’s demonstrated habit of exercising poor judgement won’t stop the editors of the Post from endorsing her is she is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee!

Under the rules as they existed during Ms. Clinton’s time as secretary, from 2009 to 2013, government officials were not strictly required to use official e-mail accounts. However, in 2011 the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said, “We are definitely instructed that we need to conduct all of our work on our government accounts . . . .” He said it was “administration policy” to use government accounts. Did this not apply to Ms. Clinton at the State Department?

Silly editors! The rules have never applied to the Clintons, either one of them.

If government officials did use private e-mails for public business, they were required to consider the e-mails to be equivalent to government records and to preserve them. Ms. Clinton took her e-mail with her when she left office in 2013, and then, in December, when asked by the State Department, turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails from the private account. Her spokesman said that in cases when she wrote to department officials at their formal addresses, those e-mails should still be in the department’s system. President Obama signed amendments to a law last November that require government employees who use private e-mail for official business to forward it to government systems within 20 days.

Which means that even if it was not illegal for Mrs Clinton to use a private server, it was illegal for her to fail to forward everything to the government within that twenty-day time frame.

Ms. Clinton is not the first high-ranking government official to write private e-mails about public business. But a host of questions arise from her decision to use private e-mail exclusively while serving as secretary. How secure was the private e-mail? What was her motive? Did anyone ask why the secretary of state was breaking with an announced administration policy? Why did she not turn over the e-mails promptly upon leaving office? Has she withheld anything?

Did anyone question her activities? Silly editors: no one ever questions the Clintons, at least no Democrats do.

It may be that Ms. Clinton used private e-mail because she anticipated Republicans would be on the prowl for scandal and wanted to control what part of her record might be scrutinized. Such fears would have had ample basis, but they do not excuse a penchant for control and secrecy that she has exhibited before — and that remains a worrying attribute as Ms. Clinton possibly enters a presidential campaign. Nor is fear of partisan criticism an even remotely valid excuse for using a private channel for official business.

Really? Mrs Clinton might have anticipated that Republicans would be on the prowl for scandal? Is the solution to that to hide government documents, or not to get involved in scandals in the first place?  Funny how that concept failed to occur to the Post.

Mrs Clinton is supposed to hold a press conference on the subject this afternoon; if it has already occurred, I haven’t heard the results yet.  But it doesn’t matter: whatever she said was a lie; when it comes to the Clintons, if it is a choice between telling a lie that can’t help them, or a truth which won’t hurt them, they will always choose to tell the lie, because that is simply their nature.

And now,1 I have seen the Associated Press story on Hillary Clinton’s press conference, and the first word that came to my mind was: liar!

“I fully complied by every rule I was governed by,” Clinton said in her first public comments since it was disclosed last week that she exclusively used a private email and server for government business.

In a 20-minute news conference, Clinton described her decision to rely on her private account as a matter of “convenience” and a way to avoid carrying two devices. She said she had never used her personal email to discuss any classified information.

Really? The Secretary of State “never used her personal email to discuss any classified information,” yet she found carrying a second device — and isn’t that what she had personal aides around to do? — an inconvenience? To believe Mrs Clinton, we must also believe that she never, not even once, found it necessary to communicate some of the very important information she had in her possession, and that was in her area of responsibility, by what was the quickest way possible.

Liar!

Clinton said her server would remain private. She also said she had discarded thousands of personal emails, such as communications related to her daughter’s wedding or her mother’s funeral, but she insisted she had given the State Department all relevant emails.

Oh, so thousands of e-mails were discarded, and we are supposed to trust her that all of them were personal in nature, as determined by her, but she is retaining private control of her server, so that her claims cannot be verified?

Liar!

Mrs Clinton is engaging in damage control, but it won’t work. There is no way that she can retain control of the server, and claim that all of the relevant e-mails have been turned over to the State Department; that is something for the State Department to determine, not Mrs Clinton and her aides. Even if the State Department decides not to pursue this, there will be plenty of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to force the server to be turned over, and the longer she fights those, the longer they will fester and damage her assumed presidential campaign.

If Hillary Clinton were an actually honest person, she would have turned over the server to the State Department, right away, to stop those lawsuits, and to demonstrate that she has nothing to hide. Her problem is that she didn’t do the right thing initially, and cannot do the right thing now, because she is a fundamentally dishonest person.

Of course, both Mrs Clinton and her husband have long seen themselves as above the law, and it might just be true: despite cattle futures and Rose Law Firm billing records and Paula Jones’ lawsuit and false testimony to prosecutors, the Clintons are free, untouchable and wealthy. But facing a (probable) presidential campaign,2 starting when Mrs Clinton is already 67 years old, she might just find that she isn’t quite as untouchable as she thinks when it comes to the judgements of the actual voters.
________________________________

  1. The first part of this article was completed earlier in the day, during breaks at work. The following portion was writen this evening, at home.
  2. I have said several times before that I did not believe that Mrs Clinton would actually run for President, due to her age and health, especially after having already experienced a grueling campaign when she was eight years younger. I may be wrong about her starting one, but she really does not look physically capable of finishing one.

Rule 5 Blogging: Women with Weapons!

It’s the weekend, and time, once again, for our version of Rule 5 Blogging; Your Editor missed our standard Rule 5 post last weekend. Robert Stacy McCain described as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat deshabille, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Anne Hathaway in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. Click on any picture to embiggen. This week, women with weapons!

Note how this soldier has a smile on her face as she practices with a .50 cal

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Women with Weapons!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

Kentucky Wildcats forward Trey Lyles (41) dunks over Florida Gators forward Jon Horford (21) during the first half of their last regular game in Lexington, Ky., on Saturday, March 7, 2015. Photo by David Stephenson

I’d have had the time to fix both the hot and cold water lines to the laundry room — I lost them both when it hit -9º F a couple of weeks ago — if I hadn’t had to take out two hours to watch the game! As it was, I only completed the cold water line.

31 up, 31 down: Kentucky routs Florida to finish perfect regular season
By Jerry Tipton | jtipton@herald-leader.com | March 7, 2015 Updated 4:41 PM EST

Fittingly for a Kentucky program synonymous with so-called one-and-done players, Kentucky’s Senior Day was just another Freshman Day.

Trey Lyles, Karl-Anthony Towns, Devin Booker and Tyler Ulis led Kentucky into the history books with a 67-49 victory over Florida on Saturday.

By winning a game pitting the Southeastern Conference’s two best defensive teams, Kentucky became the first team from a major conference to go through a regular season undefeated since Indiana in 1975-76.

Fans packed into Rupp Arena clearly wanting to see history. Multiple standing ovations (twice for 35-second shot-clock violations by Florida) and Go Big Blue chants urged on the Cats.

Read more here. UK became the second team to complete an 18-0 regular season sweep in the Southeastern Conference; Florida accomplished that last year.

And now, on to the blogroll!

Now this is cool!

Frozen fog in Clay City, Kentucky

Frozen fog in Clay City, Kentucky (Photo by my sister.)

After record snowfalls across the Bluegrass State, Kentuckians arose to record low temperatures this morning. My younger sister took this photo, of a tree on her farm.

Disability Law Firm

You are under no obligation to have legal counsel during a disability case. However, there are statistics which clearly indicate a person’s likelihood of being approved for benefits goes up dramatically if they are represented by an experienced disability attorney. This is especially true at the hearing level. All disability attorneys are not the same. Ideally, you want to find a reputable and knowledgeable attorney like those who work for Parmele Law Firm. Here are several of the most important things to consider as you search for a disability attorney to represent you.

  1. Experience
    You should start out by trying to find an attorney who specializes in disability cases. You don’t want an attorney representing you who only represents disability claimants on rare occasions. These cases are often complicated, so a deep understanding of the disability claims system is necessary to provide adequate counsel to people who are involved in these cases. During your initial consultation with an attorney, you should ask how many years of experience he or she has handling disability cases. How many total cases has the attorney handled? What is his or her winning percentage?
  2. Access to your attorney
    One of the problems many people have after they hire an attorney is the inability to get him or her on the phone. While it is true that lawyers are very busy people with other clients to represent, it is important that you are able to have your questions answered in a timely manner. Most quality attorneys will make an effort to return your call as soon as possible. However, they also employ experienced staffs that will most likely be able to answer any questions you have. Since disability lawyers are in hearings most of the day, do not be surprised if you are referred to an associate.
  3. Case management
    The firm that is handling your case should take steps to stay in touch with you and keep you updated on any recent developments. Therefore, you should find out what type of support staff the law firm has in place. Who will your case manager be? How many clients are handled by your case manager? Does the firm employ a paralegal? How often will your case manager contact you with updates on your case? Will the firm request your medical records for you? The majority of firms will advance the cost of retrieving your medical records. However, you will need to pay for them when your case is concluded.

75 Endorse Lawlessness

75 Cowards that DID NOT STAND UP TO Obama Illegal Actions on Illegal Immigarants. I’m guessing the rule of law is gone forever. And this was done after Bibi Netanyahu spoke to them in Iran.

Here Are the 75 House Republicans Who Conceded the Immigration Fight
Below is the full list of House Republicans to voted for the “clean” DHS spending bill:

1. Benishek 2. Bishop (Mich.) 3. Boehner 4. Bost
5. Brooks (Ind.) 6. Buchanan 7. Calvert 8. Carter (Texas)
9. Coffman 10. Cole 11. Collins (N.Y.) 12. Comstock
13. Costello (Pa.) 14. Curbelo (Fla.) 15. Davis, Rodney 16. Denham
17. Dent 18. Diaz-Balart 19. Dold 20. Ellmers (N.C.)
21. Emmer (Minn.) 22. Fitzpatrick 23. Frelinghuysen 24. Gibson
25. Granger 26. Guinta 27. Hanna 28. Hardy
29. Heck (Nev.) 30. Hurd (Texas) 31. Jolly 32. Katko
33. King (N.Y.) 34. Kinzinger (Ill.) 35. Kline 36. Knight
37. Lance 38. LoBiondo 39. MacArthur 40. McCarthy
41. McCaul 42. McHenry 43. McMorris Rogers 44. McSally
45. Meehan 46. Miller (Mich.) 47. Moolenaar 48. Murphy (Pa.)
49. Noem 50. Nunes 51. Paulsen 52. Pittenger
53. Pitts 54. Poliquin 55. Reichert 56. Rogers (Ky.)
57. Ros-Lehtinen 58. Royce 59. Ryan (Wis.) 60. Scalise
61. Schock 62. Shimkus 63. Simpson 64. Smith (N.J.)
65. Stefanik 66. Stivers 67. Thompson (Pa.) 68. Tiberi
69. Trott 70. Turner 71. Upton 72. Valadao
73. Walden 74. Walters, Mimi 75. Young (Ind.)

A Democrat lied to us during his campaign? Shocking!

Hillary Clinton isn’t the only lying Democrat:

Wolf’s $30B budget: tax hikes, school relief
Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden, Philadelphia Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau | Posted: Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 11:35 AM

Gov. Tom Wolf delivers his budget address for the 2015-16 fiscal year to a joint session of the Pennsylvania House and Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, in Harrisburg, Pa. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, is at left, and Lt. Gov. Michael Stack, is at right. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

HARRISBURG – Gov. Wolf on Tuesday unveiled a nearly $30 billion spending plan that would raise the state income and sales taxes, but use much of that new money to give school districts almost $4 billion for property tax breaks.The governor also wants to infuse an additional $400 million into basic education, bump up subsidies for early childhood education by $120 million and increase funding for the four state-related universities, including Temple and Lincoln universities, by $80 million.

The scope of Wolf’s first budget proposal is both ambitious and controversial, raising taxes and imposing new taxes at levels that have not been seen in years.

The administration is arguing that Democratic governor’s budget is more than just a string of tax hikes to support spending in areas like public education that saw funding slashed under his Republican predecessor.

There’s more at the original.

So, for all of those Pennsylvanians who voted for Tom Wolf, who said that he would not raise the sales tax or income taxes on the middle class, how do you like him now? Here’s a video that the Wold for Governor website used, but this copy is on YouTube, where the Governor’s minions might not be able to delete it so quickly:

From Mr Wolf’s campaign website:

Tom Wolf wants to ease the tax burden on middle class families. Tom will implement a five percent severance tax that will make oil and gas companies pay their fair share to help fund Pennsylvania’s schools. Tom Wolf’s personal income tax proposal will provide middle class families their first personal income tax break in 22 years. Tom Wolf’s personal income tax plan will make the tax system more fair, and according to one analysis, 77 percent of Pennsylvania families will get a tax cut.

The Governor’s actual proposal: to increase the individual income tax rate from 3.07% to 3.70%, a 20.52% increase. In his campaign, Mr Wolf said that he’d only increase income taxes on the top income earners; today, he proposed to increase it on everyone.

When he was running for Governor, Mr Wolf clarified that he opposes an increase to the state sales tax; now he says that he wants to increase it 10%, from 6.0% to 6.6%, and to expand sales tax coverage to some things previously exempt.

One point in particular bothers me:

On paper, Wolf’s proposed $29.9 billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 is about 3 percent higher than this year’s $29 billion spending plan. But that is because it doesn’t account for nearly $2.1 billion that Wolf would transfer into a special fund for property tax relief, as well as $1.7 billion moved to another fund for public school employee pension costs.

If that money is taken into account, Wolf’s budget proposes spending 16 percent more over this year.

Yeah, 16%, that bothers me!

I was living in Virginia when Jim Gilmore, the Republican candidate for Governor, promised to cut the very-much-hated personal property tax on automobiles during his 1997 campaign. Mr Gilmore won, but there was a problem: he became the head of the state government, while the personal property tax was levied by local governments, by counties and cities. Having no direct authority over the personal property tax, the Governor and the Democrat-controlled General Assembly put together legislation which essentially bribed the local governments to cut the personal property tax.1

That’s what Governor Wolf wants to do here, because, like Governor Gilmore, he was elected to an office that does not control the item he wants to change!

It’s understandable: people hate property taxes! I pay them,2 and I certainly do, but local governments and school districts have to be supported in some fashion. Transferring more of their funding to the state means more control of local education by the state, something to which I am unalterably opposed.

And for some areas, including the Poconos, where I live, reducing property taxes to support pubic schools, while increasing the sales and income taxes to replace them, is not a net wash. Many school districts in the Poconos have vacation homes owned by out-of-staters, vacation homes on which they have to pay property taxes. If property taxes are reduced, we will lose that out-of-state revenue, while getting no income taxes from them at all, and any sales tax increases only when they are actually buying things in Pennsylvania. In most parts of the state, this isn’t a concern, but it is in the northeast.

Fortunately, at the same time Pennsylvanians elected Mr Wolf, we also increased the sizes of the Republican majorities in both Houses of the General Assembly;3 Governor Wolf cannot get his tax increases passed unless the Republicans approve. I certainly hope that Governor Wolf’s proposals are dead on arrival!
_______________________

  1. Full disclosure: I voted for Jim Gilmore, and would do it again, but this was a misbegotten policy.
  2. Renters pay property taxes just as surely as do property owners; those taxes are included in their rents, so they aren’t as obvious.
  3. Please do not interpret the “we” to think that your Editor voted for Mr Wolf; he most certainly did not!

Possibly breaking the rules?

From The New York Times:

Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
By Michael S. Schmidt | March 2, 2015

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

More at the link.

But let’s be honest here: had the Secretary been a Republican, especially a Republican supposedly considering running for President, the headline in The New York Times wouldn’t say “possibly breaking rules,” but “breaking the law.”

There is no reason at all for the Times to mealy-mouth the story, replacing “law” with “rules” and “requirements,” but that is exactly what they did.

The story tells us, if you read between the lines, that the Secretary was not the only official who broke the law; it states that the Secretary’s “aides” failed to preserve the e-mails on “department servers,” as required under the law. People who knew better, people who knew what the law required, allowed the Secretary to violate the law.

More, there is no way on God’s earth that Secretary Clinton was not informed of the law; when she took her position, the career foreign service employees in the Secretary’s office would have presented her with the e-mail account, and whatever codes were necessary to use the secure accounts; that would have been standard procedure. These people had to have known that Mrs Clinton was breaking the law, but either willingly ignored it, or failed to tell her, throughout her four years in office.

And, given that Secretary Clinton was sending out thousands and thousands of e-mails — the article says that there were 55,000 pages of e-mails turned over, but did not specify how many e-mails that constituted — there had to have been recipients within the State Department and other branches of government who knew what the law required, and that the Secretary was breaking the law. If those officials sent reply e-mails to Mrs Clinton’s personal e-mail account, they were (possibly) breaking the law as well.

(Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency) said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.

“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”

The Times report said that it was unknown what security procedures were used for Mrs Clinton’s private e-mail account.  Your host is not an information technology professional, but wonders: wouldn’t e-mails from a private account have to go through private servers, outside of department security protocols?

As already quoted above:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Which means that it wasn’t the State Department, but Mrs Clinton’s personal employees who were “deciding” which of her e-mails were of importance to the government.  The law states that they all are!

The obvious question is: why did Secretary Clinton do this?  She knew full well that she was supposed to have a government e-mail account, and her office employees were right there to have everything set up for her.  She knew that she was breaking the law by using a private e-mail account from her office, for government business.  What good reason did Mrs Clinton have for breaking the law when it would have been just as easy to obey the law?  Your Editor can think of only two:

  1. She knew that she would be sending out e-mails which would get her in trouble if ever made public or scrutinized by the government; or
  2. She’s just plain stupid.

Remember: she was doing this from the very first day of her tenure as Secretary; the Times report stated that Mrs Clinton “exclusively used” her personal account, and “did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department,” which, in English as normally understood, means never had such an account. It’s difficult to imagine that it could be just stupidity.

But, in the end, it won’t matter in the slightest for the Democrats and the left. They will not care that Hillary Clinton willfully broke the law on a serious matter in which it was not in any way necessary for her to break the law. They will not care if she is dishonest — they have known that anyway, for years and years, and haven’t cared yet — and they will not care that she is secretive to a fault, they will not care about anything along any of those matters, as long as they think she can defeat the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.