Posts

5 Events That Prove This Was Hillary’s Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

Hillary Clinton just had a terrible, no good, very bad week. A series of events have started to catch up with her and have resulted in Donald Trump closing the polling gap nationally and state by state. Here are five reasons why this is so:

1. Trump looked presidential in a foreign visit

Clinton’s main selling point is that Trump is an unhinged individual that will embarrass himself and the nation when dealing with foreign leaders. That was forcefully put to bed on Wednesday when Trump flew to Mexico for a meeting with President Enrique Peña Nieto. Following the meeting, the two held a joint press conference which had Trump looking and acting presidential. Sure there has been some quibbling over whether or not the two discussed payment for a wall across the US-Mexico border. But the underlying optics were of a cool controlled Trump, who sounded measured.

2. Press is getting irritable about press conferences

Today marks 273 days since Clinton has held a press conference. After this week Trump has held more press conferences in foreign countries than Clinton has held on American soil. The press is starting to take notice. Politico cataloged press reaction after Tim Kaine told CBS news that Clinton is very available to the media:

Co-anchor Norah O’Donnell, off-screen, asked, “Really?”

“That’s not true – no matter how you count her availabilities,” CNN reporter Dan Merica tweeted, cc’ing traveling press secretary Nick Merrill.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller retweeted the message.

“I bet the reporters who follow Clinton ‘everywhere she goes’ would beg to differ with Tim Kaine’s assertion here,” The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker wrote, to which Bloomberg Politics’ Jennifer Epstein responded, “We do.”

To borrow a phrase from CR’s Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin, Clinton’s “praetorian guard” is getting antsy at carrying her water. And they have started being very vocal about it.

3. Emails won’t go away.

This week we also learned that the State Department has uncovered 30 more emails regarding the Benghazi consulate from Hillary Clinton’s private email account. This calls into question whether Clinton was truthful when she said all work emails were turned over before using BleachBit to clean her servers. It is not just the Benghazi emails that are resurfacing, but details about the whole operation.

The Daily Caller reported that Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were very weary of her use of a private email.

One aide worried that Clinton was giving her private email address “to everyone,” but the other aide assured her that Clinton was not widely distributing her address, but that she was receiving forwarded email from her prior Senate email address.

“Personally, I think it’s outrageous that staff go straight to her on this stuff,” Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin told Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills in an April 3, 2009, email exchange.

“This is unbelievable, and she also should not be giving her email to everyone – b/c she will get stuff like this,” a frustrated Mills replied.

The emails will continue to dog Clinton, and it will not be just from Wikileaks. A judge has ruled that a whole host of other emails must be released. As the public learns more, Clinton’s poll numbers continue to drop.

Late yesterday, the FBI released the report they sent to the Justice Department regarding Hillary’s use of a private email server. As Leon Wolf of Redstate noted on Twitter, “From the FBI’s notes they just released: 68 of the email chains they found on Clinton’s private server are still classified today.”

4. Increasing calls for the end of the Clinton Foundation

After Associated Press investigation alleging pay-for-play between the Clinton Foundation donor base and the State Department under Clinton, media publications have started to call for the Clinton Foundation to wind down fundraising operations. In an editorial, the New York Times called on the Clinton Foundation to stop taking donations immediately, saying:

The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton.

The Hill reported that experts have called into question the Foundation’s promise to end taking donations with a Clinton win.

Watchdog groups are poking holes into former President Bill Clinton’s promise that his family’s foundation will stop taking foreign and corporate cash if his wife wins the presidency.

They say it would be relatively easy for foreign governments or individuals to funnel cash into the foundation during a Hillary Clinton presidency without the American public ever learning of the foreign contributions — despite the former president’s promises outlined in an Aug. 22 open letter published on the Clinton Foundation’s website.

Rather than tamping down talk of the Foundation, the media are seemingly digging further into it. It will be interesting to see if the media back down on the Clinton criticism if she decides to hold press conferences, as this may just be a tool they are using to force her hand.

5. Favorability ratings nosedive

Clinton’s already high negatives have begun a free fall, as the public learns more about her shady dealings and probable corruption at the State Department. This week polling began to show her unfavorable rating ratcheting up from a percentage in the low 50s to a percentage pushing 60 percent. This has coincided with Trump’s unfavorable rating coming down from the mid-60s to the upper 50s.

The shift is also being shown in the polling as Trump has begun closing the post-DNC gap Clinton reached earlier this summer.

All in all this has been a brutal week for Hillary Clinton. Trump has once again seized the momentum, and is driving the message. With their first joint appearance on Wednesday evening, we will see if this momentum can hold. (For more from the author of “5 Events That Prove This Was Hillary’s Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Week” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI: Clinton Unable to Locate Any of 13 Personal Devices She Used

Hillary Clinton used 13 different personal mobile devices to either make calls or access her surreptitious email address, including eight she used while working at the State Department. But she was unable to find any of them to assist in the FBI’s investigation, according to notes the agency released Friday, and had at least some of them smashed with a hammer.

Clinton’s law firm, Williams & Connolly, said it was “unable locate any of these devices,” the FBI said. Clinton aide Justin Cooper claimed to have destroyed at least some of Clinton’s old Blackberries by breaking them in half or smashing them with a hammer.

The FBI published 58 pages of notes from its July interrogation with Clinton in response to Freedom of Information Act requests that had been filed. (Read more from “FBI: Clinton Unable to Locate Any of 13 Personal Devices She Used” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hiding Hillary: 272 Days Since Last Clinton Press Conference

ABC News reported late last night that come Labor Day, Hillary Clinton will be upgrading her campaign jet to accommodate reporters as she travels across the country to campaign events.

By finally allowing reporters onto her campaign jet, Clinton is following in the footsteps of other presidential nominees — albeit very late in the game. As the New York Times pointed out this week, the press have been traveling with presidential candidates on their planes since the early 1960’s. So far this election cycle, Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate Mike Pence is the only person out of the two presidential tickets to invite press on his plane.

In addition to keeping press off of her campaign plane, Clinton has not held a formal press conference for 272 days, since December 2015. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her why she hadn’t held a press conference this year, she said: “I had my team check. I have done nearly 300 interviews just in 2016 and I believe it’s important to continue to, you know, speak to the press as I’m doing right now.”

Right. In a controlled environment … to one reporter. There’s a difference between granting an interview to a reporter where the candidate has a lot of control, and an open press conference where the candidate will have to take questions on a host of topics. And if this is the way Clinton is conducting her campaign, how secretive will she be if she becomes president? (For more from the author of “Hiding Hillary: 272 Days Since Last Clinton Press Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Assange: There’s ‘Demon’ at Work in America

WikiLeaks already has assumed a co-equal role in America’s 2016 election to many of those players who consider themselves significant, the network, daily and station editorialists and more.

It has released Democratic Party emails, resulting in the resignation of top party officials. It has publicly promised that those who supply insider information probably will be happy with the results, and it has made no secret of the fact that Americans likely will be getting access to a lot more heretofore “secret” details before the November election.

Now founder Julian Assange is making it clear that he’ll not take anything less than full and accurate representations by the mainstream outlets.

Following an interview he granted to the New York Times, there were a number of headlines based on the interview and resulting story about alleged links to the Russian government, about how he called Hillary Clinton a “demon,” and more . . .

On Twitter, he posted, “What we were drawing attention [to] is the amazing transformation that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are by becoming the national security party and the national security candidate by whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia. (Read more from “Assange: There’s ‘Demon’ at Work in America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Email Reveals Clinton Foundation Execs Demanding Diplomatic Passports From Top Hillary Aide

When a Clinton Foundation executive wanted diplomatic passports for himself and an associate back in July 2009, all it took was one email to get a reply from top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin saying, “Ok will figure it out.”

The email was among 510 pages of new State Department documents that were released by Judicial Watch as it continues its investigation into the Hillary Clinton-era State Department, its links to the Clinton Foundation, and the use of a private email server by Clinton while she was secretary of state.

“The idea that the State Department would even consider a diplomatic passport for Clinton Foundation executives is beyond belief,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“These emails show various violations of national security laws and ethics rules and further confirm that Hillary and Bill Clinton are personally implicated in the Clinton Foundation pay to play scandal,” he said.

According to a press release issued by Judicial Watch, the request by Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band was for a special diplomatic passport for himself and his associates – an unidentified “JD” and apparently Justin Cooper, who Judicial Watch described as “formerly a key member of Bill Clinton’s personal office.”

The exchange of emails, as released by Judicial Watch, went like this:

From Band to Abedin:

Need get me/ justy and jd dip passports.

We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them.

Six minutes later, Abedin replied:

Ok will figure it out

Judicial Watch’s release notes, “The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations strictly limits the granting of diplomatic passports to members of the Foreign Service, their family members, or those working on U.S. government contracts.”

The Clinton campaign said in response that the diplomatic passports were needed as part of an effort to free American journalists held by North Korea.

The Judicial Watch press release also said that among the emails it found are some in which Hillary Clinton forwarded classified information to Abedin’s unsecured, non-state.gov account.

“The emails also show Bill Clinton sought a meeting with Mrs. Clinton for a major Clinton donor with State Department officials and Hillary Clinton herself pushed for a joint event with the Clinton Global Initiative,” the release stated, adding that Band received special help from Abedin for Clinton Foundation donor Chris Ruddy.

Another of the newly released emails finds the Clinton State Department granting special favors to Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, which donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The July 2009 exchange began with Abedin advising Clinton scheduler Lona Valmoro that “wjc” (William Jefferson Clinton) wanted special treatment for Liveris:

Wjc wants to be sure hrc sees Andrew Liveris, ceo of dow tomorrow night. Apparently he is head of us china business council. Is he definitely going to be there?

The email string ended with Clinton aide Paul Narain responding to Valmoro:

Lona, I have arranged this pull aside for on the arrival in the Hold Room across the hall from the ballroom, immediately prior to the Secretary’s entrance and remarks.

Judicial Watch said the new documents include 37 Clinton email exchanges not previously handed over to the State Department, bringing the total to 228.

“These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, ‘as far as she knew,’ all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department,” Judicial watch said. (For more from the author of “Email Reveals Clinton Foundation Execs Demanding Diplomatic Passports From Top Hillary Aide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Corrupt Media Wouldn’t Care If Hillary Handed out Suitcase Nukes as Party Favors at Clinton Foundation Events

Where does media bias come from?

Anyone who really wanted to know had that question answered when much of the media took a break from attacking Trump to attack the Associated Press. What does the AP have in common with Trump? Both were hurting Hillary Clinton’s chances to score payoffs from dictators, arms dealers and tycoons with terrorist ties for the next four to eight years.

The Associated Press got in trouble with the rest of the media for digging up dirt on the Clinton Foundation. Instead of just repeating the usual Clinton denials, it actually ran the numbers and noted that more than half the “ordinary folks” who got meetings with her had donated to her Foundation.

Instead of reporting on the AP story, the media went to war on its own. It wasn’t just the usual suspects like Vox and Slate who have a reputation for attacking any actual reporters who stray off the reservation and actually do their jobs. This time all the big boys were on the job.

CNN called in AP’s Kathleen Carroll to barrage her with classic ‘Have you stopped beating your wife’ loaded questions like, “Did you feel the pressure to publish something even though so many critics have said it didn’t amount to much?” A better question might be why CNN didn’t inform viewers that its parent company was a Clinton Foundation donor. But that would be practicing journalism.

Instead CNN offers gems like, “AP’s ‘Big Story’ on Clinton Foundation is big failure”. A high school paper could have come up with a cleverer putdown, but in this brave new world in which media companies donate to front groups for presidential campaigns and then denounce stories exposing their corruption there are no more new ideas, just organized spin sessions.
If you didn’t like the AP headline, try Vox’s “The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess.”

Yes, they are all reading from the same script.

The New York Times initially blacklisted the story. Then it came out with a call for Hillary Clinton to cut ties with the Clinton Foundation. That’s like asking Al Capone to cut ties with the mob.

But the Times might have started out by cutting its own ties to the Clinton Foundation.

Carlos Slim, the Mexican-Lebanese billionaire who keeps the lights burning at the New York Times HQ, gave the Clinton Foundation anywhere from 2 to 10 million dollars. Then there’s the six figure sum that Hillary picked up for delivering one of her comatose speeches about something or other in a robotic monotone.

It wouldn’t do for his Manhattan investment property to undermine his Washington D.C. investment property.

The Times tremulously urged Hillary to cut ties with the organization she had used to fuel her political ambitions, worrying that, “If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries.”

Could prove? If the New York Times occasionally bothered to report the news, it would have noticed that it already had. But the Times isn’t worried about ethics, legality or national security. Instead it, incredibly, asks Hillary to act to protect her agenda and reputation from her own crimes.

That’s like asking an embezzler to quickly burn his second set of books before the cops catch him.

The New York Times doesn’t give a damn if foreign interests buy the White House. Its only concern is to protect Hillary from Republican attacks. And this overt bias is actually downright moderate.

It’s almost noble compared to the Washington Post, another Clinton Foundation donor, which fired off one attack after another. There was this cheerfully breezy masterpiece which read like North Korean propaganda written by a Portland hipster, “AP chief on patently false Clinton tweet: No regrets!” (For more from the author of “Corrupt Media Wouldn’t Care If Hillary Handed out Suitcase Nukes as Party Favors at Clinton Foundation Events” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!

It’s been a rough start to the week for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, State Department attorneys announced that they had retrieved 30 emails relating to the 2012 Benghazi attacks from Clinton’s private server.

According to the Washington Examiner, a judge requested that the agency review the documents ahead of a release to the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in a year-long FBI probe involving around 15,000 emails — over 2,000 of which were believed to contain classified information.

As the Examiner points out, the new discovery is noteworthy because Clinton had repeatedly insisted to government agencies and to the public that she turned over all work-related communications in the batch of 55,000 pages she submitted to the FBI in late 2014.

During the hearing Tuesday, State Department lawyers told Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court that they had yet to determine how many of the 30 emails had already been disclosed in the 2014 email dump, according to the Examiner.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton announced in a tweet Tuesday that the State Department requested 30 days to review the new emails before releasing them to the watchdog group.

But wait — there’s more! On Wednesday, the New York Post announced that it has exclusively learned that Clinton continued to send classified information over her private server months after leaving the State Department:

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The email, sent from [email protected] (the account associated with Clinton’s private server), is marked classified until May 28, 2033. The RNC eventually received a heavily redacted copy through its Freedom of Information Act request, as it includes “information regarding foreign governors” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

Clinton sent the email to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The “123 Deal,” also called the “123 Agreement,” was a 2009 agreement between the United States and United Arab Emirates that established “a required legal framework for commerce in civilian nuclear energy between the two countries,” according to the UAE Embassy website.

“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” RNC research director Raj Shah told the Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”

Darn that Freedom of Information Act! (For more from the author of “Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Camp Thinks Trump Fell for Old Trick

Hillary Clinton’s campaign feels confident. So confident that behind closed doors her team is taking some credit for forcing Donald Trump to seemingly defend territory that Republicans almost never lose.

After weeks of Brooklyn telegraphing a competitive race in traditionally red states and making public moves that look like initial investments — boosting staff, holding fundraisers and promising more investments — Trump is now campaigning in Arizona, which has voted Republican in 15 of the past 16 elections, while his running mate goes to Georgia, a state that’s gone red in seven of the past eight cycles.

That’s a deployment of precious resources away from swing states that Trump must win to make the Electoral College math work in his favor.

In private, members of Clinton’s team draw a direct line between their activity in those states and Trump’s worries there. In public, Democrats are starting to cheer the success.

“This would be the equivalent of Hillary having to campaign in Massachusetts or having to campaign in California, except [to raise] money,” said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaign and White House teams who remains close to the family’s operation. “Either he has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, or there are substantive concerns given his changes in some of the margins within specific cohorts of voters. Either way, it’s good news.” (Read more from “Clinton Camp Thinks Trump Fell for Old Trick” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities’

Hours before he won a contested Florida primary, the state’s junior Senator declined to criticize Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for calling Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a “bigot.” According to Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Trump is merely turning a long-time Democratic tactic against them, and not without some justification.

“Democrats have been calling republicans a bigot for a long time,” Rubio told CNN reporter Manu Raju. “Some of the policies she stands for do harm minority communities, absolutely.”

“Too far to call her a bigot, though?” asked Raju.

“You have to ask other campaigns about the terms they use,” said Rubio. “I can tell you I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be our president.”

Trump has pivoted his campaign in recent weeks to woo black voters, saying that Clinton is a “bigot” because she doesn’t care about the quality of minority lives in America. “She is a bigot,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “She is selling them down the tubes because she’s not doing anything for those communities. She talks a good game. But she doesn’t do anything.”

When Cooper asked if Clinton had disdain for blacks, Trump said, “Her policies are bigoted because she knows they’re not going to work.”

Clinton responded in a Thursday speech, twice accusing Trump of “bigotry” and twice accusing him of making a “racial lie.” Many media voices seemed to defend Clinton or downplay the aggression in her speech, even as they reacted strongly to Trump’s accusations.

The Nazi Card

Trump’s attack is one often heard, but usually it’s Democrats calling Republicans bigots. A quick search pulled up some prominent liberal figures accusing various Republicans of bigoted beliefs of various kinds, including the charge that they hold the same positions as Nazis.

In 2001, the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center and then-NAACP Chairman Julian Bond — now deceased — compared U.S. conservatives to the Taliban. In 2003, he said of Republicans, “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”

Current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was accused in his Senate hearings of discriminatory beliefs towards non-whites and women, something that led his wife to leave the hearing in tears and Alito to declare, “I am not any kind of a bigot.”

A 2004 Townhall.com column highlighted many examples of prominent Democrats — among them then-Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, himself a former KKK member, as well former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and a federal judge — comparing President George W. Bush or members of his administration to Hitler or to those working for Hitler. This column highlights other examples.

Sometimes the accusations are subtle. Other times, not so much. After a rules debate in the U.S. Senate, one Democratic Senator dialed the rhetoric straight to ten:

“You’re a bunch of dictators, that’s all you are,” Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) shouted as he stormed, red-faced, from a meeting room just off the House floor. “I had to fight you guys 50 years ago,” said Gibbons, who fought the Nazis in World War II.

In 2012, the Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party compared GOP Governor Nikki Haley — who is of Indian descent — to Adolf Hitler’s girlfriend Eva Braun, this when Haley spoke at a GOP event in Charlotte, North Carolina at the same time as the Democratic National Convention.

There is enough of this sort of thing to compile “A Short History of Liberals Using the Nazi Card” against conservatives.

Fascists and Racists

When they want to be slightly less hamfisted, the American left opts for terms like “fascist” or “racist.” So, for instance, in 2015 a University of Wisconsin sociologist who is now employed by Temple University called her state’s governor, Scott Walker, “and many Wisconsin Legislators” fascists in a tweet. She wasn’t the only one. A Google search for the joint terms “Scott Walker” and “fascist” brings up many options.

Last year, prominent liberal columnist Frank Rich said that Dr. Ben Carson, who is black, appealed to the “racist, bigoted” GOP base when Carson said he might not support a Muslim president. In 2013, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) compared Tea Party activists to the KKK, which led to criticisms from liberals like MSNBC host Martin Bashir, but also praise from liberal commentators — including one who said Mitt Romney was engaging in racism when he told the NAACP in 2012 that some voters want “free stuff.”

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, was also accused of bigotry in a Bloomberg column for allegedly forcing a gay staffer criticized by social conservatives to quit his campaign. His predecessor GOP nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was accused of various forms of racism and bigotry in multiple mediums when he ran for President.

President Barack Obama was not above similar rhetoric, accusing Romney in 2012 of wanting to bring America back to its sexist and racist past. Other prominent liberal voices did the same on TV, online and in print, to the point where many Americans may have simply tuned them out.

Media is “Setting Aside Any Concept of Ethics or Neutrality”

Conservative critics of the media’s treatment of Republicans abound. One of them, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, told The Stream that “the left and the media use four major strategies to attack either conservative or right-leaning politicians. They claim they are some combination of crazy, evil, stupid and racist. They depicted Reagan as crazy, senile (stupid) and racist. George H.W. Bush had run the CIA, so he was evil. George W. Bush was described as crazy and stupid.”

“The ist words are the most popular ones with the media now — racist, sexist, nationalist, etc.,” continued Gainor. “These are designed to eliminate any debate. One you have been declared ist, you are merely supposed to recant and be silent.”

Gainor concluded, “Liberals and those in the media are shocked that Trump dare criticize Clinton at all. They overwhelmingly have thrown in for her candidacy, setting aside any concept of ethics or neutrality.” (For more from the author of “Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOOM: Here Are the 25 Questions Hillary Clinton Must Answer — Under Oath — by Sept. 29th

There are only a few groups dedicated to the tireless pursuit of corruption in Washington.

I’m not talking about the various Ethics or Oversight committees in Congress. Those feckless clowns seem more interested in protecting the status quo than in any real investigation. No, I refer, of course, to the patriots at Judicial Watch who have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s criminal activities like a starving greyhound after five pounds of filet.

We’re at the point in various judicial activities that Hillary Clinton is now compelled to answer a series of 25 questions — under oath — related to her pernicious, illegal and outrageous use of a home-brew email server to intermingle official State Department business with that of the Clinton Global Graft Initiative. Annnd the questions are:

1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

2. Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

3. When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

4. Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

5. In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

6. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

7. Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

8. After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

9. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

10. During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?

11. During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

12. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

13. At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

14. On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

15. In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

16. Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

17. In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

18. On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

19. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?

20. When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

21. After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

22. In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

23. After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

24. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

25. Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

I just have two words for the Clinton Kamp.

Ruh.

Roh. (For more from the author of “BOOM: Here Are the 25 Questions Hillary Clinton Must Answer — Under Oath — by Sept. 29th” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.