How do you know a lawyer is lying? His/her lips are moving. Thankfully, I came across this ludicrous "journalistic" hypocrisy several hours after dinner. I really don't like to eat shit sandwiches, especially after a nice meal. So we now read from one of K street's biggest honchos, Lanny Davis, of Clinton legal defense fame, about how wonderful Hillary has done ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong.

Well, let's see, how many "fibs" Lanny has made in this ludicrous claim of his.

With all the hours of punditry and tens of thousands of words written about Hillary Clinton’s emails by the political press corps, it is amazing that the whole episode can be boiled down to five undisputed facts.

.

Only five facts? Really?

First, the former secretary of state did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated

The OIG does not do criminal complaints. They review policy and procedure compliance--they are not a law-enforcement body.
So the fact the OIG's report did not cite any broken laws is irrelevant. That is a job more suitably to be done by agencies such as the FBI. But wait! The FBI is already conducting not one, but TWO criminal investigations, Lanny.

Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her private own email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought — mistakenly — would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server.

.

Okay, so how do we know this, Lanny, since your buddy Hillary deleted more than 50% of her own emails that were on a non-government server and not "captured" on a DOS server. Oh, such sloppy recored keeping. Well, now DOS has changed their rules about record capturing--everything NOW must be retained whether initiated at DOS or elsewhere. However this does not exclude, nor excuse the fact that Hillary unilaterally deleted emails. Just like in a marriage, when records are commingled, they must be adjudicated by an impartial source as to what was and what was not "work-related". This, Lanny, is a crime--they have a name for this: obstruction of justice. There is also the violation of the Federal Records Act, which although imposes no criminal penalties on persons who are not in government, does not seem to be ethical. Lanny, do you think this may be why so many Americans do not think darling Hillary is trustworthy?

Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification.

.

Sounds good, but smells bad, just like the dung you are trying to hide. Hilarious was one of ten (10) Federal officials to create the classification of documents. Two, the espionage act says that top secret or classified information must be maintained on government property, be they written or electronic--once removed from government guardianship constitutes a felony--even if ONLY due to "gross negligence". At the most charitable interpretation of HRC's sequestration of federal communications could be considered as negligent--in fact a fellow named Obama comment that HRC was "careless". Hillary was given a two hour security briefing when she took office as SOS concerning security issues--and she signed a document stating that indeed she had received such a briefing. One of the things she should have learned was that a document need not be classified in writing as confidential or greater, the CONTENT of the document, irrespective of the labelling makes it so. So, Lanny if you are going to use that lame excuse to bolster your claim of "no harm, no foul" (set aside hacking concerns for the time being), this would imply that Hillary is too dumb to understand what sensitive material necessary to withholding from any but limited dissemination is, then does that characterize her as fit to govern? She is making classification decisions--and she's been briefed on recognizing them. Are you asserting that someone so careless should be President?

Finally, about your third point, Lanny, HRC ordered her underlings to strip off "classified" labels from emails so that they could be sent to her non-federally approved private server.

Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server handling her emails was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of state risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever.

Well, there may not be a smoking gun but the smell of cordite is in the air on that claim. First, Guccifer, the Romanian hacker says he breached HRC's computer twice, plus he saw at least ten other unauthorized hacks into her computer server. Also, Guccifier came across some juicy emails from communications between bff's Sid Blumenthal and the as yet unindicted queen about Libya. First of all, this information would definitely be considered as classified, and certainly, as being darned near to classified. So what gave Sid the right to have access to these emails without ANY security clearances at all? Remember that guy Obama? He didn't want seditious Sid anywhere the State Dept, exercising his personal non-confidence in Mr. Blumenthal.

Another issue, not yet confirmed, but widely circulated, is that there currently are ongoing discussions in the Kremlin about whether or not to release 20,000 of Hillary's emails that they hacked. Okay, that's just rumor now--but wait--the cascade of info may be starting soon. I don't think Vladimir P. would like to see War-hawk Hillary in the White House. Okay, maybe he's willing to play "Russian roulette" with nuclear weapons if Hillary skates indictment.

Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice.

.

Colin Powell did not use a private server to conduct government business. He admitted to using a private email address on a government server. Condy Rice was "guilty of the same thing--using a private email account--on a government server. This is a lot different than using a private server for government difference. Lanny, if you don't know the difference between a server and an email address, I suggest that you read "The Internet for Dummies" book.

Meanwhile, had Clinton used the State Department server rather than her private one, as her critics say she should have done, is there evidence that her emails would have been more secure? To the contrary: We know that Russian hackers raided the State Department server files.

This is a wonderful argument! So if on a given night a thief breaks into the house next door but doesn't get into your house through an unlocked door--that means that her practice of using an non-secure server was okay? Really. Okay, Lanny, consider two things:
1. If a hacker could break into a more strongly encrypted server, does that mean that Hillary's home brew server would have been safer?
2. Going back to the burglary analogy, if the burglar finds easy pickings at your neighbor's home. does that make hime more or less likely to try your place the next time.
3. If the house next door to yours burns down but not your domicile, are you going to cancel your fire insurance?

So isn’t Hillary Clinton being held to a double standard? I’m shocked, shocked.

.

Well, actually, Lanny, Hillary IS BEING HELD TO A DOUBLE STANDARD: If John or Jane Q. Citizen were suspected of a fraction of the wrong-doing committed by HRC, he or she would guests at the Graybar Hotel for an indefinite sentence--but not a short one.