I watched Mrs. Clinton's "press conference" yesterday, wherein she explained that she chose to use her personal server for email instead of a government server because she did not want to lug around two different devices. That may satisfy some people, but to me it was as believable as the story that a YouTube video started the Bengazi attack.
Mrs. Clinton's release of 55,000 emails in PRINTED form is a disingenuous gesture that strikes a familiar theme to anyone who has tried to use the FOI Laws against an uncooperative government agency. What better way to avoid scrutiny than to take electronic documents and change them into an overwhelming number of printed documents. This does three things: (1) prevents them from being electronically searched for key words, (2) deletes the "header" information contained in each e-mail that documents the servers that the e-mail passed through, and (3) discourages the discovery process by making it time consuming and expensive.
There is clearly more going on here than Mrs. Clinton ignoring protocol.
Just before Mrs. Clinton took the podium, she was shown sitting in a seat at the UN . . . and sitting behind her was her top aide, Huma Abedin. If you remember, former Rep. Michelle Bachmann long ago raised a question how Ms.Abedin was able to obtain a security clearance given her familial relations to Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) operatives. . . but Bachmann was quickly labelled an "extremist" by certain Republicans, including our local congressman, and Bachman's logical, rational questions about Ms. Abedin's status were never answered.
Now, with discovery of Mrs. Clinton's e-mail irregularities, Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request seeking
1. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
2. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.Why the interest in Mahmoud? Per Judicial Watch quoting its sources:
. . .Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”Mrs. Clinton was careful yesterday to state that "most" of her communications were with US government employees which would have been captured by government computers on the receiving end. But if she wrote to Morsi, or to Nagla Mahmoud, those communications would NOT have been captured.
Mrs. Clinton stated that she "deleted" e-mails that were "personal" in nature. Would that include communications with Morsi? Would that include communications with Morsi's wife? Is what might be considered blackmail by Morsi's wife the subject of a "personal" communication? If a high government official has a "personal" relationship with a member of a terrorist organization, should the "personal" relationship shield communications from public review?
The Judicial Watch release, which has not been discussed in the media, gives a new urgency to getting to the bottom of Mrs. Clinton's actions.