FLASH UPDATE: THE “DON’T MISS THIS ONE — THE CLINTONS ARE ‘...CITIZENS UNITED...’ ON STEROIDS” EDITION

DOESN’T THIS LOOK LIKE A “QUID PRO QUO” TO YOU ?   —   WELL, EVEN IF ISN’T,  “THE ATLANTIC” MAGAZINE THINKS IT’S VERY IMPORTANT  —   DETAILS HOW THE CLINTON HAVE GOTTEN $$$$$ COZY WITH THE WORLDS LARGEST BANKS

“THE ATLANTIC” GOES SO FAR AS TO ASK  —   HOW CAN  DEMOCRATS BE WILLING TO SEND THE CLINTONS TO THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN

The Wall Street Journal came out yesterday with the details of a significant action by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton involving an intervention with another agency of the U.S. government, the IRS, on behalf of a major Swiss bank that was facing criminal prosecution in the United States. The magazine, “The Atlantic” picked up that story and ran with it.

According to Conor Friedersdorf, one of the folks at “The Atlantic” magazine,  “  –  The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created. –  The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past [vis a vis some of the world’s major banks]....”  (See “Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons” by Conor Friedersdorf, 7/31/15, The Atlantic [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/]).

A QUESTION TO DEMOCRATS – HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT ANOTHER CLINTON TO BE PRESIDENT

The detailed Atlantic article that draws from several other sources points out that “One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters....   How can mainstream Democratic Party beliefs about the corrupting effects of money in politics and the perniciousness of Big Finance possibly be squared with elevating as their leaders a couple as cozy with Big Finance as anyone in American politics?...    Even Democrats who aren’t concerned about the agenda of Big Finance ought to ask themselves if America is best served by a president and first spouse who care so little about preserving the confidence that the public can reasonably have in the integrity of their actions. They are far from the only members of our elite who’ve put a payday ahead of the common good, but it’s hard to think of a more flagrant example.”

WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE

For those interested in the original Wall Street Journal article,  see “UBS Deal Shows Clinton’s Complicated Ties -- Donations to family foundation increased after secretary of state’s involvement in tax case” by James V. Grimaldi & Rebacca Ballhaus, 7/30/15, Wall Street Journal [http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492].

POINTED QUESTION: Will Bill Clinton's predatory sexual history be the straw that breaks the back of the Hillary Clinton Campaign ?

Let's put it another way ---  Can a woman whose husband is a well-known sexual predator be the first woman President of the United States ?

In Salon, interviewee Camille Paglia, asks why Bill Clinton isn't being subjected to the same scrutiny and opprobrium as Bill Cosby

The top story mentioned in this morning's Drudge Report is "PAGLIA: HOW BILL CLINTON -- IS LIKE BILL COSBY!"  --   it's the one above the headline  (See "Drudge Report" 7/28/15  [http://www.drudgereport.com/]).  That item in "Drudge..."   links to an article in Salon, the progressive internet magazine.

The tough part of the Salon article for Hillary Clinton started like this:  "....  The banner on the Drudge Report this morning is that Kathleen Willey is starting a site to collect harassment claims against Bill Clinton. New York magazine, meanwhile, has the stories of 35 women who say they were raped or assaulted by Bill Cosby. I wonder if you see a connection between the two stories: Would Bill Clinton’s exploits be viewed more like Cosby’s if he was in the White House now, instead of in the 1990s?...    Right from the start, when the Bill Cosby scandal surfaced, I knew it was not going to bode well for Hillary’s campaign, because young women today have a much lower threshold for tolerance of these matters. The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was...."  (See "Camille Paglia: How Bill Clinton is like Bill Cosby"  by David Daley,   7/27/15, Salon [http://www.salon.com/2015/07/28/camille_paglia_how_bill_clinton_is_like_bill_cosby/]).

"...BILL CKINTON WAS A SERIAL ABUSER OF WORKING CLASS WOMEN..."                                                                                                                               --- Salon

The Salon article continued "...we’re living in a different time right now, and young women have absolutely no memory of Bill Clinton. It’s like ancient history for them; there’s no reservoir of accumulated good will. And the actual facts of the matter are that Bill Clinton was a serial abuser of working-class women–he had exploited that power differential even in Arkansas.  And then in the case of Monica Lewinsky –  I mean, the failure on the part of Gloria Steinem and company to protect her was an absolute disgrace in feminist history! What bigger power differential could there be than between the president of the United States and this poor innocent girl? Not only an intern but clearly a girl who had a kind of pleading, open look to her –  somebody who was looking for a father figure.... I was enraged!  My publicly stated opinion at the time was that I don’t care what public figures do in their private life. It’s a very sophisticated style among the French, and generally in Europe, where the heads of state tend to have mistresses on the side. So what? That doesn’t bother me at all!  But the point is, they are sophisticated affairs that the European politicians have, while the Clinton episode was a disgrace....   A cigar and the intern is certainly the opposite of sophisticated....  Absolutely! It was frat house stuff!  And Monica got nothing out of it.  Bill Clinton used her.  Hillary was away or inattentive, and he used Monica in the White House–and in the suite of the Oval Office, of all places.... "

SALON ASKS THE POINTED QUESTION

---    "So have the times and standards changed enough that Clinton would be seen as Cosby, if he was president today?"

AND PAGLIA HAS A DISCURSIVE ANSWER COMPARING THE PSYCHOLOGIES OF THE BILLS --- CLINTON AND COSBY

And Camille Paglia seems to answer Salon's quesstion like this:   "....  Oh, yes!  There’s absolutely no doubt, especially in this age of instant social media. In most of these cases, like the Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby stories, there’s been a complete neglect of psychology. We’re in a period right now where nobody asks any questions about psychology.  No one has any feeling for human motivation.  No one talks about sexuality in terms of emotional needs and symbolism and the legacy of childhood. Sexuality has been politicized –  'Don’t ask any questions!'  'No discussion!'  'Gay is exactly equivalent to straight!'    And thus in this period of psychological blindness or inertness, our art has become dull. There’s nothing interesting being written – in fiction or plays or movies. Everything is boring because of our failure to ask psychological questions....  So I say there is a big parallel between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton–aside from their initials!  Young feminists need to understand that this abusive behavior by powerful men signifies their sense that female power is much bigger than they are!  These two people, Clinton and Cosby, are emotionally infantile–they’re engaged in a war with female power. It has something to do with their early sense of being smothered by female power–and this pathetic, abusive and criminal behavior is the result of their sense of inadequacy...."

This is not the stuff of conservative Republicans or conservative Republicanism, but it is the stuff of latter-day 60s & 70s feminist discussions, made meaningful by Ms. Paglia in 2015.  It's also something that Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Clinton Campaign and people like the HRC Super Volunteers don't want to deal with at this time.  That's why it just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back of the Clinton Campaign.

Just how much trouble is Hillary Clinton facing with this E-mail referral to the Justice Department ? ? ?

"...  [Hillary] Clinton's blanket assertions that she faithfully followed all laws and regulations related to both federal records and classified information [are becoming] increasingly untenable."   ---  CNN 

---  Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a "Criminal," unfit to run for President of the United States --  all because of her mishandling of classified material on her private E-mail system

---  Hillary's response (delivered in "prison stripes") was  "I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. What I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released....    I think there's so much confusion around this that I understand why reporters and the public are asking questions, but the facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time...."

---  Disputes  like that get settled in courts every day ---  they are called "criminal trials"

BUT  ---  Is that where it all stands, right now ?

According to a post by CNN,  "Of the many allegations related to Hillary Clinton's emails -- ranging from reasonable to conspiratorial -- the most serious are the findings by two inspectors general that Clinton's private email server contained classified information and a related referral to the FBI concerning a 'potential compromise of classified information.' While details remain unclear, the alleged presence of classified information on a private email server undoubtedly has legal implications for the controversy -- and places a strain on Clinton's public defense...."  (See "How serious is the Clinton email controversy?"  by Douglas Cox, 7/27/15,  CNN  [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/opinions/cox-clinton-email-controversy/index.html]).
After a lenghthy and detailed discussion of Hillary Clinton's obligations and actions handling "classified" material on her private E-mail system,   CNN's Douglas Cox concluded his blog-posted article with this:  "....   In the end, the high political stakes and aggressive voices on both sides make finding the middle -- or the truth -- challenging. There is, so far, no evidence Clinton has committed a criminal act, and those making such allegations risk overplaying their hand. In fact, had there actually been a criminal referral against Clinton, it would likely serve as a silver bullet for Clinton's public defense. Such referrals rarely result in criminal investigations, much less charges, and the eventual, inevitable decision not to pursue the matter would allow Clinton to claim vindication....   Ultimately, though, details about the private email server continue. And as they do, they are making Clinton's blanket assertions that she faithfully followed all laws and regulations related to both federal records and classified information increasingly untenable."

HILLARY IS UNTRUSTWORTHY & HER E-MAIL EXCUSES NEVER PAN OUT                        --  JENNIFER RUBIN, WA/PO

According to Jennifer Rubin's column in Sunday's Washington Post, "There is a reason Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers show voters think she is untrustworthy: She keeps telling them things that are not true....   On the use of her e-mails, we know the long list of untruths about the private e-mail server and the e-mails, thousands of which were destroyed. She turned over everything she had. (No, about 15 documents were not given to the State Department.) She never got a subpoena. (Oh yes she did.) She did it only for the convenience of using one device. (She had multiple devices.)...  The biggest untruth of them all: She followed all the rules. No she did not, The Post’s Glenn Kessler found: “In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims ‘everything I did was permitted,’ she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.” There was no classified material. (Actually, an inspector general says there was.)..."  (See "Hillary Clinton’s e-mail excuses never pan out" by Jennifer Rubin, 7/26/15,  Washington Post/ On the Right [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/26/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out/]).

WHAT THE INSPECTORS' GENERAL REFERRAL TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS ALL ABOUT

The following is the analysis provided by "The Daily Signal,"  which is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation:   "After this referral hit the news on Friday, a dispute erupted over whether the request by the inspector general of the intelligence community to open an investigation of Clinton’s handling of information classified as 'secret' was a 'criminal' referral or not. At first, a Department of Justice official said the 'investigation was criminal in nature' according to the Wall Street Journal but the department 'reversed course hours later without explanation.'...   As the former head of the National Security Division of the Justice Department, Lisa O. Monaco, who is now an assistant to the president for counterterrorism, explained in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2012 (before the public knew about Clinton’s personal server), the intelligence community must report the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials to DOJ....   The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed....    Those referrals 'come in the form of a letter identifying the classified information'  and providing other relevant information such as  'the level of classification.'...   That is obviously exactly what the inspector general has done in the referral letter sent to DOJ....   Before anyone can definitively assert that there has been no disclosure of classified material, they should be reminded that that is the precise issue here: we don’t know—at this point— if there has been any such disclosure....    What we do know is that the inspector general for the intelligence community has alleged that information classified as “secret” at the time it was sent went out on a non-secure, personal email system in contravention of all of the rules and regulations (and common sense) governing the handling of secret and sensitive material....   According to Monaco, agency referrals like this one by the inspector general go to the National Security Division and 'typically represent the first step to initiating a criminal investigation.'... ”  (See "The Clinton Emails: Will DOJ Conduct a Real Investigation?" by  Hans von Spakovsky,  7/27/15,  The Daily Signal  [http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/27/the-clinton-emails-will-doj-conduct-a-real-investigation/]).

HERE'S WHERE IT STANDS RIGHT NOW

A joint statement by the two inspectors general, who were involved in the referral of the matter of mishandling classified information on Hillary Clinton's  E-mail system to the DOJ, was issued late Friday.  That joint statement contradicts what former Secretary of State Clinton said about the emails on Saturday.  To date, the  IG for the Intelligence Community has only been allowed to review a small sample from Clinton’s private email server [ 40 out of the total of 30,000 emails  that Clinton has turned over to the State Department].  In that limited sample of forty (40),  four (4)  E-mails contained classified information.

According to a report from the Conservative News Service,   "....   'The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification marking and/or dissemination controls,'  State Department Inspector General Steve Linick and Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough, III, said in their joint statement released late Friday afternoon....   'These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather, these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today,' the inspectors general said...."  (See  "State Dept. Inspector General Contradicts Clinton: Emails ‘Contained Classified Information When They Were Generated’"  by Brittany M. Hughes,   7/27/15,  CNS/ CNSNews.com   [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/state-dept-inspector-general-contradicts-clinton-emails-contained]).

Marty Golden probably even less happy now that his Brooklyn State Senate Colleague John Smapson was found guilty in Federal Court

State Senator John Sampson's Conviction is another dose of very harsh medicine for his Brooklyn Senate colleague, who also under investigation by the same prosecutor, and all those around that find themselves anywhere near that State Senator

For Preet Bharara to break the corruption of the "three men in a room" approach to politics, which is still being practiced right in his face  --  The Manhattan Federal Prosecutor has to break the Republican control of the NYS Senate

A report in today's Daily News more than suggests Preet Bharara isn't finished cleaning up Albany  ---  That means he's not finished cleaning up the New York State Senate

“Either way, it seems there won’t be any letup soon.”                                                                                          -- Former Brooklyn USAA for Public Integrity

For some time now, I have been a little rough in my treatment of State Senator Martin Golden.  Largely, that's been because of his largely "me -- first, and everybody else who can't help me -- last"  approach to politics.  I could have overlooked a lot of that, and for a long time I did.  If the State Senator had been more loyal to his own GOP party, and to his GOP running mates in election after election, he'd probably still have me in his corner -- even with his current problems.  But all of that changed for good early in 2013.  It was then that two off Golden's staffers at the time wanted to meet me for breakfast [the back &forth was a little less straight forward  than that, but let's leave it at that]. At that breakfast meeting,  I was told how popular my attacks on the County Chairman and several of his closest supporters were at NYSS Golden's Bay Ridge Office, and that even some of the Albany staff followed my blog.  Then I was told that I should be happy to hear that there were going to be a bunch of changes in the Brooklyn GOP organization.  Marty Golden's open break with the Brooklyn GOP County Chairman and the Kings County Republican Organization happened around the same time as my breakfast meeting with the Golden staffers.

Discussions with the Kings County Republican Chairman and several other members of the Brooklyn and New York State GOP infrastructure confirmed my conclusions in two key areas:  first, Marty Golden is a RINO [Republican in Name Only] -- he has done very little to advance the Republican Organization, Republican candidates or a Republican sensibility throughout his district  ---  or even to support fellow Republican State Senate candidates, who were competitive, and sometimes even capable of winning, in districts adjoining Golden's;   second, Marty Golden is a PACINO [pretend ardent conservative in name only] -- he has become a reliable vote in pursuing the agenda of NY's progressive Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, all to the detriment of several  socially and fiscally conservative constituencies.

HOW THAT ALL TIES IN WITH WHAT  PREET BHARARA HAS DONE ---  AND LIKELY WILL BE DOING

This is an independent Republican blog that has some very clear conservative and sometimes down-right right-wing leanings. My posts largely come from cited sources, and I do try to give the material some bight, or punch, or local relevance. 

Many comment makers on this blog have made it seem like I am personally gloating or otherwise gleeful at the discomfiture of State Senator Golden, his staff, and/or his other associates and supporters. That is much more stylistic than driven by personal animus, either to him or anybody around him. (I am not in any way referring to comment makers who are apparently very critical of Mr. Golden, and who might even be gloating or gleeful. I make no defense, apologies or excuses for them or the material that they might put on this blog.)

That being said, I do intend to report on what is happening and how it effects this story.

WHAT'S HAPPENIN' THE DAILY NEWS --  I'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S HAPPENIN' IN THE DAILY NEWS

According to an article in today's Daily [Sunday] News by John Marzulli,  "The convictions of two high-ranking New York lawmakers last week shows the sleaze runs deep in Albany....  Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has said there is a 'certain percentage' of politicians in Albany who are corrupt, which is underscored by the more than two dozen officials elected in the state who have been arrested or convicted since 2008....   'There’s more than a few bad apples, it’s a bushel of bad apples,' said Dick Dadey, executive director of the good-government group Citizens Union....   Add to that rotten core state Sen. Thomas Libous (R-Binghamton), who was found guilty of lying to FBI agents, and state Sen. John Sampson (D-Brooklyn), who was convicted of obstructing a federal investigation. Libous was the No. 2 Republican in the state Senate...."  (See "More than a few bad apples: Albany politicians are corrupt, Manhattan U.S. Attorney says" by John Marzulli,7/25/15 [in 7/26/15 print editions], NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/albany-politicians-corrupt-manhattan-u-s-attorney-article-1.2304402]).

THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES HANGING OVER LOCAL BAY RIDGE POL AND HIS PEEPS

Note what Libous and Sampson were convicted of  --   "lying to FBI agents" and  "obstructing a federal investigation."   It is exactly charges like that which are very threatening to any politicians now being investigated by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara.  In fact, they are the real hidden trap or pitfall in any investigation  ---  because it extends to all appropriate questions involved in the investigation.  Significantly, those kinds of charges can be brought against anybody questioned in connection with the person targeted in the investigation.

THE ZEAL OF THE PROSECUTORS
In my last post, I noted how it was the zeal that Preet Bharara brought to his prosecutions that was most worrying to State Snator Golden and those close to him.  Passages like this really have to be quite bothersome to Golden, his staff, his business associates, his political associates and his family:  “Is it more corruption in Albany or more aggressive prosecutions in New York?” wondered Roger Burlingame, the former chief of the Brooklyn U.S. attorney’s office public integrity unit.  “Either way, it seems there won’t be any letup soon.”

With that in mind look at how the article in today's News  summed up:   "The feds in Manhattan and Brooklyn have aggressively investigated pols using techniques, like flipping co-conspirators, wiretaps, undercover agents and video surveillance, which have been employed effectively against organized crime....    'The U.S. attorney in Manhattan generally believes Albany is corrupt and that the politicians are not acting in the public interest, so that’s the area where he is going to focus,' said lawyer Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor who represented ex-state Controller Alan Hevesi on corruption charges....   Before Cuomo put the Moreland Commission out of business, then-Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch testified before the commission that the corruption cases have a corrosive effect on society and weaken the political system as well....   'Those officials who are truly trying to do good are cast in the same light as those who are engaging in wrongdoing, rendering them less effective,'  said Lynch, who is now the U.S. attorney general."

All of that means there is likely to be no let-up is in sight when it comes to Preet Bharara's investigation of our local state senator.

FLASH UPDATE: THE " 'ORWELLIAN CLINTON' EMERGES BECAUSE OF NY TIMES REPORT" EDITION

HILLARY CLINTON'S FOLKS HAVE OBVIOUSLY GONE  "FULL GORILLA" TO 'MEMORY HOLE" ANYTHING ABOUT A POSSIBLE "CRIMINAL PROBE" BY THE DOJ INTO ANY MISHANDLING OF "CLASSIFIED INFORMATION"  CONTAINED IN THE NOW-INFAMOUS HILLARY E-MAILS BY FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

STORY CHANGING ALMOST MINUTE BY MINUTE AS HILLARY'S PEEPS ARE FIGHTING HARD  TO GET THE TOOTHPASTE BACK IN THE TUBE

EVEN THE DOJ HAS BEEN FORCED TO RETRACT ITS ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT THE "CRIMINAL REFERRAL" RELATED TO THE HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS

According to Newsmax, "Attorney General Loretta Lynch's Justice Department has been asked by two inspectors general to launch a probe of Hillary Clinton's handling of classified government information while using a private email account while she was secretary of state....   The New York Times, which was the first to report the development, cited unnamed sources saying that the request was criminal in nature....
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that a Justice Department official initially confirmed that a criminal investigation had been requested, but later reversed its position without comment....   "The department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral," said an official....   Inspectors general for the State Department and  Office of the Director of National Intelligence are seeking the investigation after writing two memos on the subject to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, copies of which the Times said were provided to it.... The conclusion of the memos was that Clinton's private email account had "hundreds of potentially classified emails," Fox News reported....   The inspectors general said that at least one email that had been made public by the State Department contained sensitive information, according to Fox News...."  (See "Justice Dept Backs Off Criminal Probe Over Hillary's Classified Emails" by Melanie Batley, 7/24/15,  Newmax [with multiple  internal links to original sources] [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-email-criminal/2015/07/23/id/658674/]).

Friday, July 24, 2015, another bad day for Hillary Clinton: She and her E-Mails are on Page One of the New York Times --- Again, It's in a Bad Way

Inspector Generals of U.S. State Department and Intelligence Agencies call for "Criminal Investigation" by U.S. Justice Department concerning the mis-handling of classified material contained in Hillary Clinton's E-Mails 

IGs' request is under review, but no decision has been made by the Justice Department  ---  Spokesman for  Hillary Clinton declined to comment to the NY Times

In a feature based upon memos  "... provided to The New York Times by a senior government official..." the Times reports on Page One  of its Friday editions that ---  "Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday....   The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management....   It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them....    But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.... "  (See "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account" by Michael S. Schmidt & Matt Apuzzo, 7/23/15, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html] [A version of this article appears in print on July 24, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline:  "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Use"]).

The Timesmen, who did  the Friday report, emphasized  that  "...   [a]t issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests...."

The Times article contained the following notations:  "The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said...."  --  and   --  "A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment...."

CLINTON TEAM'S RESPONSE IS THE USUAL NON-RESPONSE  ---   HRC CAMPAIGN ONCE AGAIN FAILS TO GET AHEAD OF BIG STORY

So far, it does not appear that either the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Clintons' personal legal and PR team have made any atempt to address these issues in any way.  That would be consistent with prior experience in these kinds of situations.  As in several such instances in the past, where Hillary Clinton has reponded late and after much prodding by the media, it is to be expected  that some response to this development will happen in due course.

This is a big story that already seems to have some legs.  A Google search  for "Hillary Clinton News" at 1:30 AM EDT  yeilded these results:
"Hillary Clinton's email could become a criminal matter – report --The Guardian-1 hour ago
Hillary Clinton may face a criminal investigation by the justice department over her use of a private email address while she was secretary of ...Justice Department asked to probe Hillary Clinton's email use: NYT --  Reuters-37 minutes ago
Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account --  New York Times-1 hour ago
Federal officials want a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's ... --  Business Insider-1 hour ago
2 IGs urge probe of Hillary Clinton email --  Opinion-Boston Herald-20 minutes ago
Criminal Investigation Sought Over Hillary Clinton's State ... --  Blog-Slate Magazine (blog)-1 hour ago
Explore in depth (20 more articles)" (See: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+news&tbm=nws).

Then again, this isn't the easiest stuff to spin.  After all, State Department and Intelligence Agencies' IGs, and the New York Times are hardly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy or the GOP's political machine.  But, who knows, soon maybe we'll find out that they are.

It's been a Very Bad Couple of Days for Marty Golden, Golden's Staff, and others close to the State Senator

There has been an awful lot of  "whistling past the graveyard" as Republican State Senators Tom Libous and Dean Skelos really got worked over by Federal Prosecutor Preet Bharara

The conviction of Tom Libous shows that even those not mainly targeted in  a Bharara investigation are also in danger of investigation, indictment and conviction for "...lies to law enforcement..."

THE LIBOUS CASES

According to one of NewYork City's more popular tabloids,   " [t]he No. 2 man in the state senate was convicted Wednesday of lying to the FBI about using his political muscle to score a high-paying job for his ne’er-do-well son....   State Sen. Tom Libous faces up to 5 years in prison when he is sentenced on October 30....  (See "State Senator Tom Libous found guilty of lying to the FBI" by Lorena Mongelli & Josh Saul,   7/22/15,  NY Post  [http://nypost.com/2015/07/22/state-senator-tom-libous-found-guilty-of-lying-to-the-fbi/]).   The target of the investigation in the Libous case was a relative;  and the conviction of State Senator Libous shows that anybody close to a target can easily slip into the cross-hairs by  "...lies to law enforcement..."   That can be by anybody related to or working for the target of the probe.
 State Senator Libous' son Matthew prviously had  been disbarred and is set to begin a six-month sentence for failing to report $70,000 income for his taxes.

 

THE SKELOS CASES

Meanwhile, almost simultaneously,  there has been a bit of a dust-up in another of Preet Bharara's cases against another senior GOP State Senator.  According to Jillian Jorgensen's  report for the Obaserver,  "... [f]ormer Senate Leader Dean Skelos arranged to get his son Adam Skelos a job at a medical malpractice insurance company with business before the state—where the son threatened a supervisor and said he didn’t have to show up to work because of his father’s position—according to new charges brought by a grand jury....  Mr. Skelos—a Long Island Republican who remains a state senator but stepped down from his leadership post—and his son both face two new charges, one of extortion and one of soliciting bribes, in a new superseding indictment handed up in federal court this afternoon. The charges provide further detail about a scheme to obtain income and health insurance for Adam Skelos from an unnamed medical malpractice insurance company that was alluded to in a late-May grand jury indictment that expanded upon the charges first brought by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara....  The new charges are in addition to bribery and extortion charges connected to two other alleged corruption schemes, dealing with a real estate developer and an environmental technology company...."  (See "New Charges for Dean Skelos and Son Allege No-Show Malpractice Jobs" by Jillian Jorgensen, 7/21/15,  NY Observer/ News [http://observer.com/2015/07/new-charges-for-dean-skelos-and-son-allege-no-show-malpractice-jobs/]).

The newly outlined malpractice insurance scheme is one of three contained in the grand jury’s latest indictment. Dean Skelos is also accused of directing a real estate development company and environmental technology company to steer business to his son in exchange for favorable treatment in Albany. Mr. Skelos and his son allegedly threatened to block a multi-million contract with Nassau County for the environmental firm unless payments to Adam Skelos, who allegedly said himself he knew little about the firm’s work, were increased.

The mere mention  of "... a real estate development company"  probably made the whole Golden team shudder, since Golden's own associations with real estate developers had been quite notorious.

THE THREAT TO GOLDEN AND THOSE AROUND HIM

It isn't  necessarily the details of the Libous or Skelos cases that bothers the Golden folks.  What is  very threatening to  State Senator Martin Golden and everybody around him is the zeal of  the Federal prosecutor, which was openly expressed in this reported remark:   "Public corruption is a scourge.  Every New Yorker wants us to work as hard as possible to end it. But lies to law enforcement make the job of fighting corruption doubly difficult....    A jury unanimously found that Tom Libous, the second highest ranking New York Senator, told lie after lie to hide the truth from federal agents investigating corruption in Albany. Libous’s lies have been exposed, his crime has been proven, and Albany will be the better for it...."  

Of course, that was Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara  ---  the very same person that is reported to be looking very closely into the financing of certain events held at Golden's family owned business, The Bay Ridge Manor,  all as matters associated with a Federal probe of  Golden's political fund raising.

Needless to say, such an investigation is full of hidden traps for anybody who might try to, or even fail to avoid  "...lies to law enforcement..."  Imagine how, many of the routine suspects near and around Golden will perform when questioned about political fundraising and events at The Bay Ridge Manor under circumstances that are more intense than anything they've experienced before.

Wait, it could be worse than that.  According to the Daily News, State Senator Libous had claimed  that his  "...  answers to FBI agents that he did not know how his son had gotten the job and that he’d never promised it business were were simply vague answers to vague questions.... "  ( See "State Sen. Thomas Libous guilty of lying to FBI agents" by  Laura Sanicola & Stephen Rex Brown. 7/22/15, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/state-sen-thomas-libous-guilty-lying-fbi-agents-article-1.2300960]).   How do you think some of Golden's staff will be able to handle something like that?

THE GOLDEN INVESTIGATION BY PREET BHARARA HAS BEEN UNDER-REPORTED

Neither the local nor city-wide press has done much follow-up on the Golden case lately.   It has fallen almost compleely off the radar screen.  Some of Golden's stongest supporters have even hinted that the investigation State Senator Golden might be over.

SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON POLLING UPDATE: THE "MEANWHILE IN OTHER POLLING THAT MIGHT REALLY MATTER" EDITION

HILLARY CLINTON POLLING FLASH:  THE NUMBERS HAVE FLIPPED AGAINST HILLZ    >>>>   IN IOWA, VIRGINIA & COLORADO

HRC TRAILS BUSH, WALKER AND RUBIO IN LATEST Q-POLL IN THREE KEY STATES

PUNDITS SAY THAT IF TRUMP WEREN'T THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY RIGHT NOW, HILLARY'S BAD NUMBERS  WOULD DOMINATE THE CYCLE  ---   BUT  ODDLY  ---   IN THE SAME POLL, TRUMP IS THE LEAST FAVORED OF ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

According to a report in Newsmax, "Three 2016 Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker — are ahead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in matchups in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, a new poll has found.... According to a Quinnipiac poll conducted July 9-20 of registered voters:
In Colorado, Clinton is at 38 percent compared to 46 percent for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; she's at 36 percent compared to 41 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; and she also gets 38 percent in a matchup with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has 47 percent support.... In Iowa, Clinton has 36 percent compared to 44 percent for Rubio; Clinton has 36 percent compared to 42 percent for Bush; and in a race against Walker, Clinton is at 37 percent compared to 45 percent....   In Virginia, Clinton is at 41 percent in a matchup with Rubio, who has 43 percent; she has 39 percent in a matchup with Bush, who gets 42 percent; and Clinton is at 40 percent compared to 43 percent for Walker....   The results for Clinton compare to an April poll, in which she was ahead in a number of matchups...." ( See "Quinnipiac: Hillary Losing to GOP Rivals in 3 Swing States" by Melanie Batley, 7/22/15, Newsmax   [http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-walker-bush-rubio/2015/07/22/id/658329/]).

The Newsmax article also points out that "...  [m]eanwhile, the poll also found that Trump has negative favorability ratings of almost 2-1 in each state, the worst of any candidate polled, Republican or Democrat: 31-58 percent in Colorado; 32-57 percent in Iowa; and 32-61 percent in Virginia.

TRUMP FACTOR  --  LOOKS LIKE HE'S A NEGATIVE OVERALL  --  MAYBE !!!

The same Quinnipiac Poll also found that Trump has negative favorability ratings of almost 2-1 in those same states, the worst of any candidate polled, Republican or Democrat: 31-58 percent in Colorado; 32-57 percent in Iowa; and 32-61 percent in Virginia.

On the Trump front, The Newsmax folks also threw in this tid-bit:  "Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday, NBC Political Director and "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd said troubles in the Clinton campaign are being overshadowed by the popularity of Donald Trump....   'If it wasn't for Donald Trump, the biggest story of the summer would be Hillary Clinton's problems solidifying herself inside the Democratic Party,' Todd said....  'Whenever she's been out front as the face of the Democratic Party, her numbers are going down. They always have.'..."

If nothing else, talking about Trump gets in the way of more bad news for Hillary.  That's got to be good for Hillary and bad for the GOP as a whole....   Then again, maybe not....

SPECIAL UPDATE: THE "LET'S WAIT AND SEE HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT FOR TRUMP" EDITION

TRUMP'S EARLY CAMPAIGN IS AT A PIVOT POINT  CATALYZED BY HIS PERSONAL COUNTER-ATTACK ON  JOHN MC CAIN  ---  THIS FLAP IS A TEST OF TRUMP'S STAYING POWER

MOST REPORTS OF DONALD TRUMP'S INTERVIEW ON "THE O'REILLY FACTOR" HAD MR. TRUMP WALKING BACK HIS COMMENTS ABOUT JOHN MC CAIN  ---  INSTEAD I'LL SAY THAT TRUMP PRETTY MUCH STOOD HIS GROUND  AND EXECUTED A BRILLIANT PIVOT ON  WHAT, A VERY HOSTILE TO TRUMP,  FOX CALLS ITS  "MOST WATCHED" CABLE NEWS PROGRAM

IN A DOWN TO EARTH TAKE ON ALL THIS   ---   THE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS THAT EVEN TRUMP'S CRITICS NOTE THAT  ---   AS A RESULT OF TRUMP, VETERANS' ISSUES HAVE NOT HAD THIS MUCH ATTENTION IN YEARS

There has been a lot of parsing and analyzing what Donald Trump did or didn't say to Bill O'Reilly last night. Most of it is pure BS.  I'll use the WSJ version as a typical one, because I don't like the phony headline the Fox folks put on their own skewed report of the O'Reilly show.   [BTW, it doesn't matter much because Rupert Murdoch has put the word out, ala Wlliam Randolph Hearst, John Foster Kane and Gale Wynand (Hmmm! sounds familiar), to take down Trump whatever it takes.]

WALL STREET JOURNAL GIVES TRUMP-O'REILLY INTERVIEW TYPICAL TREATMENT

According to the Wall Street Journal's  Rebecca Ballhaus,  "Presidential candidate Donald Trump said he respects Sen. John McCain and insisted that he didn’t malign the Arizona Republican’s war record — but said that if there was a “misunderstanding” over his words, he would take them back....  'I have respect for Sen. McCain. I used to like him a lot. I supported him. I raised a lot of money for his campaign against President Obama and certainly if there was a misunderstanding, I would totally take that back,'  Mr. Trump told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly on Monday night....   The latest remarks come after a tumultuous weekend for Mr. Trump, who has surged to the top of the splintered GOP presidential field but has alienated a good portion of the party, first with comments about immigrants a few weeks ago, and then the comments about Mr. McCain...."  ( See "Trump Takes Step Toward Making Peace With GOP" by Rebecca Ballhaus, 7/20/15 - 11:30 PM EDT, The Wall Street Journal[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/20/donald-trump-takes-step-toward-making-peace-with-gop/]).

The WSJ article also pointed out that "...  Mr. Trump’s comments Monday came following the release of a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing the real estate mogul with a double-digit lead over the rest of the GOP field nationally. The poll found Mr. Trump with 24% support among Republican primary voters, compared to 13% for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and 12% for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush...."

MAYBE, THE NY TIMES HAS STUMBLED ONTO  SOMETHING ABOUT THE TRUMP PHENOMENON   ---   LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE WHOLE VETERANS ISSUE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS

An interesting counterpoint to all of this Trump-McCain brouhaha appears in the NY Times coverage of the Trump-O'REilly-McCain segment on "The Factor" (See "Veterans’ Groups Take Their Shots at Donald Trump as He Backs Off a Bit on McCain" by Jeremy W. Peters, 7/20/15, NY Times/ Politics[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/us/politics/veterans-groups-take-their-shots-at-trump-as-he-backs-off-a-bit-on-mccain.html?_r=0]).

In spite of its very negative sounding title, this particular Times' article concluded with the following:
"...  Even some of Mr. Trump’s allies said that they would not quibble with Mr. McCain’s record. 'Don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain is strong on veterans’ issues,' said Joel Arends, chairman of Veterans for a Strong America, which defended Mr. Trump over the weekend in a statement that his campaign issued in a news release....   'The problem is not John McCain’s record. The problem is how do we run government and is government going to be responsive to men and women who’ve laid their lives on the line for this country,'  Mr. Arends said, adding that he believed Mr. Trump had hit a nerve by identifying the inefficiencies and breakdowns in veterans’ services....   Some advocates said they were hoping that the glare of media attention that Mr. Trump has turned on them would be of benefit.  'I’ve gotten more media calls today than I probably have in the last 11 years,' Mr. Rieckhoff  [head of a veterans group that criticized Trump]  said.  'But this is a bigger conversation than whether or not Trump said something stupid.' ”

McCain tries the full "Kamikaze" to take out Trump --- Senior Senator, former GOP Standard bearer, and former POW, John McCain, decides to fully engage Donald Trump about his remarks

McCain appears on MSNBC's  "Morning Joe" program  ---  Says Trump needs to apologize to POWs, Veterans  AND their families

McCain --  after reminding Morning Joe that he had defended John Kerry from the "Swift-boating" movie -- tells series of anecdotes about real hero POWs --  Refuses to take the bait and call Trump a "Draft Dodger"

McCain also engaged Trump on the issue of what he has done for veterans

According to a written report by NBC News,  " Sen. John McCain said Monday that he does not view himself as a hero but that Donald Trump owes an apology to veterans for his comments about soldiers captured in war....   Asked on MSNBC's Morning Joe if Trump owes him an apology, McCain responded:  'No, I don't think so. But I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving their country.' ...   'There are so many men, and some women, who served and sacrificed and happened to be held prisoner and somehow to denigrate that, in any way, their service I think is offensive,' he added...."  ( See :  "John McCain: Donald Trump Owes Vets an Apology, Not Me" by Carrie Dann,  7/20/15,  NBC News[http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/elizabeth-warren-calls-trump-blowhard-over-mccain-comments-n395146][with video link including "Morning Joe" McCain Segment).

MC CAIN'S STATEMENT FULL OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS ABOUT WHAT TRUMP SAID  --  PRAISED BY JOE SCARBROUGH AS "TAKING THE HIGH ROAD"

It's interesting that John McCain chose to show up on MSNBC to deliver severalbelow the belt shots to a current  GOP candidate for president, Donald Trump.   All the while egging McCain on to say something about how he felt about being insulted by somebody that "dodged the draft," Joe Scarborough completely let pass the fact that  McCain was completely mischaracterizing what Donald Trump actually had said.   Scaborough let McCain "set up a straw man" and generalize the argument to be about ALL veterans and POWS  --  and avoid  the fact that the remarks were directed only at McCain, himself.   Between, completely unrelated annecdotes including his reference to defending John Kerry from the  charges in the "Swift Boat" movie,  McCain indirectly pounded on Trump.   For all of that, Joe Scaborough praised McCain for "Taking the high road...."  ---  a formulation that was parroted by other at  NBC News.

Interestingly, McCain also mentioned what he has done for veterans as a congressman and U.S. Senator  ---   this was an attempt to parry Trumps more recent thrusts about McCain's letting down veterans as a part of the Washington establishment.

SPECIAL UPDATE: THE "IT LOOKS LIKE TRUMP WILL PLAY THE CARDS IN HIS HAND -- AND DOUBLE HIS PRIOR BET AGAINST MC CAIN" EDITION

TRUMP STAYS TRUMP ---  AND HE SHOWS EVERYBODY THAT HE'LL PLAY THIS GAME HIS WAY

"I AM NOT A FAN OF JOHN MCCAIN, HE HAS DONE SO LITTLE FOR VETERANS..."   -- TRUMP

"....   AND FRANKLY, I THINK [JOHN MC CAIN] OWES [MY SUPPORTERS]  AN APOLOGY"  --  TRUMP

SHOWS REST OF GOP HE WILL FIGHT IT OUT OVER HIS  JOHN MC CAIN REMARKS

According to ABC News,   "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he does not owe John McCain an apology for saying the Arizona senator is only a war hero 'because he was captured.'...    Before Trump's comments, McCain had referred to those who attended a campaign event for the real estate mogul as 'crazies.'..."  ( See "Donald Trump Says He Does Not Owe John McCain Apology" by Benjamin Bell,  7/19/15, ABC News  [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-owe-mccain-apology/story?id=32547286]).  On Saturday, Trump had released a statement that read, in part, "I am not a fan of John McCain because he has done so little for our Veterans."

ON ABC'S  "THIS WEEK..." PROGRAM

On ABC's "This Week... [with Martha Raddatz hosting]" there was this exchange near the beginning of the show:  

"MARTHA RADDATZ: And let’s get straight to Donald Trump who joins us right now on the phone for his interview since those controversial comments.  --    Thanks for joining us, Mr. Trump.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good morning.

TRUMP SAYS "NO" TO APOLOGY FOR MC CAIN

RADDATZ: Do you owe John McCain an apology?

TRUMP: No, not at all. Actually, if you look at Sharyl Attkisson’s report last night, four times she said I said perfectly, I said whatever it was, and it was absolutely fine. And she thought the press was covering me very -- very, very unfairly. And she stated that strongly. And I respect her as a reporter. And somebody that a lot of other people respect.  --   Also and very importantly I got a standing ovation, the biggest ovation they had all weekend, by far. When I left the room, it was a total standing ovation. It was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted. --  What happened is, later on, the Republican candidates, some of whom are registering 1 percent and zero, and they’re very upset that I’m leading the polls by actually a nice margin, they’re extremely upset and they were extremely when the Nevada numbers just came out and they’re through the roof too. They started attacking me  --

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, I want to -- let’s go back to this issue of John McCain, and you’re talking about the Sharyl Attkisson piece. You said he’s a war hero because he was captured, I believe perhaps he’s a war hero.  --   I want to read you a short bio of John McCain. He was shot down in 1967 on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam. He fractured both arms and a leg when he ejected and nearly drowned when he parachuted into a lake. He was pulled out by North Vietnamese, who crushed his shoulder with a rifle and bayoneted him. He was beaten, tortured, and interrogated. He spent five and a half years a POW. The North Vietnamese offered McCain early release for propaganda purposes. He He refused until every man taken before him was released. He cannot raise his arms above his head to this day because of his wartime injuries.  --   You do not think that is a war hero, captured or not?

TRUMP: No, not at all. Actually, if you look at Sharyl Attkisson’s report last night, four times she said I said perfectly, I said whatever it was, and it was absolutely fine. And she thought the press was covering me very -- very, very unfairly. And she stated that strongly. And I respect her as a reporter. And somebody that a lot of other people respect.  --   Also and very importantly I got a standing ovation, the biggest ovation they had all weekend, by far. When I left the room, it was a total standing ovation. It was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted.  --   What happened is, later on, the Republican candidates, some of whom are registering 1 percent and zero, and they’re very upset that I’m leading the polls by actually a nice margin, they’re extremely upset and they were extremely when the Nevada numbers just came out and they’re through the roof too. They started attacking me --

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, I want to -- let’s go back to this issue of John McCain, and you’re talking about the Sharyl Attkisson piece. You said he’s a war hero because he was captured, I believe perhaps he’s a war hero.  --  I want to read you a short bio of John McCain. He was shot down in 1967 on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam. He fractured both arms and a leg when he ejected and nearly drowned when he parachuted into a lake. He was pulled out by North Vietnamese, who crushed his shoulder with a rifle and bayoneted him. He was beaten, tortured, and interrogated. He spent five and a half years a POW. The North Vietnamese offered McCain early release for propaganda purposes. He He refused until every man taken before him was released. He cannot raise his arms above his head to this day because of his wartime injuries. --  You do not think that is a war hero, captured or not?

TRUMP PIVOTS FROM MC CAIN TO VETERANS

TRUMP: I didn’t say anything differently. And if you read -- and if you watch and take a look at what you have, I said nothing differently. I’m very disappointed in John McCain because the vets are horribly treated in this country. I’m fight for the vets. I’ve done a lot for the vets.  --   And the vets -- I’ve been going around to the campaign trail. They’re treated like third-class citizens. He’s done nothing to help the vets. And I will tell you, they are living in hell.

RADDATZ: [Talking about comments by the heads of two veterans groups]

TRUMP SAYS HE IS WITH VETERANS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY  ---  ALSO THAT IT'S JOHN MC CAIN  WHO OWES THE APOLOGY

TRUMP: Well, maybe they don’t speak to the same vets that I speak to. But I go all over the country and I speak to vets all the time. And they’re absolutely having miserable times. It takes them six, seven days just to get into waiting in a reception room, just trying to get in to see a doctor. They’re treated horribly. And everybody knows it and it --

RADDATZ: Let’s go back here -- let’s go back to your comment about John McCain --

TRUMP: -- and it’s a scandal. And John McCain has done nothing to --

RADDATZ: There is -- Mr. Trump, I have covered the veterans issues for many, many years. Indeed, there are big troubles in the Veterans Administration.

TRUMP: -- the veterans except talk. --   And by the way, this all started, Martha, when we had thousands and thousands of people in Phoenix, Arizona, and John -- who, by the way, are devastated by illegal immigration, something I’m very proud to have brought to the forefront. We had thousands of people and he said they’re all crazies. He called them crazies. --  And frankly, I think he owes them an apology...."

The back and forth continued for some time.   And this is how the segment on ABC's  "This Week..." closed:

TRUMP CONCLUDES

"TRUMP: I believe that I will do far more for veterans than John McCain has done for many, many years, with all talk no action. He’s on television all the time, talking, talking. Nothing gets done. You look at what’s happening to our veterans -- they’re being decimated, OK. So I will do far more for veterans than anybody. I’ll be able to build them new hospitals, I’ll be able to build them care centers. I’ll be able to help the veterans.  --   John McCain has failed. Because all you have to do is take a look -- what you report on all the time, take a look at the scandal at the Veterans’ Administration and the disastrous conditions under which our veterans have to live. And believe me, I built, with a small group, the Vietnam Memorial in downtown Manhattan. I know what it is to help people and I know what it is to help veterans.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Trump...."

SO THERE IT IS TRUMP IS READY TO BATTLE IT OUT WITH THE REST OF THE GOP OVER JOHN MCAIN

Let's talk about Trump.... No matter what, Donald Trump has surged to a real lead in the polls for the GOP race for the presidential nomination

Let's talk about Trump....   He is as critical of most Republicans as he is of Democrats, like Obama and Hillary Clinton

Let's talk about Trump....  He has hit a chord with some group of Americans, mostly Republican men  ---  however big or small that group might be

Let's talk about Trump....  Even when he trips over his own negative  remarks about  John McCain's war record,  Trump is the biggest story in the news  ---   Like,  getting on the front page of the Sunday NY Times

According to a report in CNN's blog   "Laconia, New Hampshire  --  (CNN)Donald Trump, surging in the polls, arrived at this lakeside enclave and trained his ire on perhaps the only target that aggravates his supporters as much as the Obama Administration: Republicans....   'They're all talk, they're no action,' Trump said, revving up his fiery takedown of politicians....  'I'm more disappointed in many ways with the Republicans,' Trump said.  'They have this great indignation, whether it's Benghazi or the emails... nothing ever happens.'..."   ( See "Why Donald Trump is surging in the polls"  by Sara Murray, 7/18/15, CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-summer-surge/]).

CNN's reporting also indicated,  "Trump is enjoying a summer surge as he takes the lead in a poll of Republican presidential contenders released on Friday. The billionaire businessman is offending Hispanics and irking his GOP competitors but it's clear that his in-your-face demeanor and willingness to take on President Barack Obama -- then just as quickly turn his sharp tongue toward members of his own party -- is winning over Republican voters...."

TRUMP'S MC CAIN REMARKS WILL BE THE AT LEAST ONE OF THE BIG NEWS STORIES THIS SUNDAY  ---   MAYBE EVEN THE BIGGEST

The latest news is that the NY Times will be doing a few articles about Donald Trump in tomorrow's editions of the paper.  At least one of those stories will on the front page  ---  unless I'm wrong about what day it is, that means Trump will have another big story on page one of the Sunday Times....   There are many in politics that say there is no such thing as bad publicity (Right now, I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton would disagree, but we'll discuss that some other time).  You can also be sure that the Donald Trump -- John McCain story will probably be on most, if not all, of the Sunday network and cable news programs.

No matter what  gets done or said this Sunday vis a vis Donald Trump will necessarily end his "Campaign" for the presidency.

Donald Trump and only Donald Trump will decide if he wants to dig out of this.  However, only Trump, himself, will decide if that's the course that he will pursue.  If the past is any guide, Trump might well decide to own this episode -- and then, to double-down against McCain somehow.

One of my favorite phrases here at "Galewyn Massey... Fountainhead" is completely appropriate for "THE DONALD" and these circumstances  --  LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT . . . .

AP POLL MEANS MORE BAD NEWS FOR HILLARY --- ANOTHER BAD DAY IN ANOTHER BAD WEEK

If the polls were sharks, and Hillary Clinton sailed  into the most recent AP poll, she would need a bigger boat  

After roll-out-after- roll-out- after- roll-out  ---  The AP-Gfk   poll says 49% of Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and only 39% like her

People seem to think that Hillary can't identify with them and that she lacks compassion

This looks like it might be another bad week foe Hillary  ---  Exactly how many has that been in a row ? ? ?

According to a report early today on the Yahoo News blog, "More Americans now have an unfavorable than a favorable view of Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll that finds negative ratings of the former secretary of state have increased over the past few months, especially among Democrats...."  (See "AP-GfK Poll: Americans view Clinton, Republicans unfavorably" by Emily Swason, 7/16/15, Yahoo News/ AP [http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-americans-view-clinton-republicans-unfavorably-071925104--election.html]).  According to this report, digging into the numbers makes things look even worse. for Clinton and her campaign.

"CLINTON'S RATINGS DROPPING"  -- AP

Only thirty-nine percent (39%)  Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, while forty-nine  percent (49%) have an unfavorable view, according to the new survey. In an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April, forty-six percent (46%) had a favorable opinion and just forty-one  percent (41%) had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.

EVEN AMONG DEMOCRATS

The percentage of Democrats giving Clinton favorable ratings dropped from eighty-one  percent  (81%0  in the April poll to seventy percent (70%) in  July.   Also, now nearly one quarter of Democrats  say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light. Positive ratings of Clinton also fell among men, from forty-four percent (44%)  to thirty-four (34%) percent.  And only forty-five percent (45%) of women Democrats  were counted as having favorable views of Hillary.

HILLARY SEEN AS  "NOT COMPASSIONATE"  --  TO MANY,  HILLARY SEEMS  MUCH LESS COMPASSIONATE NOW THAN OBAMA DID IN 2008

Perhaps most concerning for Hillary Clinton and her supporters, only  forty percent (40%)  of Americans in the recent AP poll say the word "compassionate" describes her at least somewhat well, while fifty-eight percent (58%)  say it describes her only slightly well or less.  By contrast, in 2008,  fifty-six percent  (56%) of Americans considered presidential candidate Barack Obama to be at least somewhat compassionate.

Strategic Parley --- OR --- Is it really a "Parlay" that's afoot --- Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump to meet up formally in NYC

Washington Post is first to report on scheduled Wednesday meeting between GOP contenders

Texas Senator Ted Cruz  will meet with fellow GOP presidential contender Donald Trump on Wednesday in New York City skyscraper called  the "Trump Tower"   ---    btw, that's  where Trump has HIS campaign headquarters 

Sudden mention of Trump-Cruz Ticket

According to a report in Breitbart News,  "[Ted] Cruz, the first Republican to declare a run for the presidency, will step onto Trump’s territory in Manhattan and is visiting Trump, not the other way around. As the Washington Post notes, the two candidates are on friendly terms and both take a strong, popular stand against mass illegal immigration...." (See "TRUMP/CRUZ SUMMIT IN MANHATTAN"  by Katie McHugh,  7/15/15,  Breitbart News  [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/15/trumpcruz-summit-in-manhattan/]).

TRUMP MIGHT MAKE USE OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCE TO FEND-OFF OTHER REPUBLICANS'  ATTACKS

The Breitbart-McHugh article went on to state,  "....   After the political class denounced Trump for pointing out that Mexico sends criminals, such as drug dealers and rapists, across the border, Cruz defended him....   'I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration. The Washington cartel doesn’t want to address that,'   he told Meet The Press‘s Chuck Todd....    The Washington Post also spoke to several Republicans after both campaigns declined to comment.  Knowledgeable party members said the two see one another as 'fellow travelers,'  and Trump may use Cruz to help fend off attacks...."

FROM EARLIER REPORT IN THE WASHNGTON POST

This story was first report lated yesterday in the WaPo   ( See "Ted Cruz and Donald Trump to meet Wednesday in New York" by Robert Costa, 7/14/15, The Washington Post   [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/14/ted-cruz-and-donald-trump-to-meet-wednesday-in-new-york/]).

The Washington Post article also made this observation:   "....  The conclave is the latest sign of budding solidarity between the contenders, who have been friendly for several years and who have put forceful critiques of illegal immigration and their party’s establishment at the center of their bids....   In recent weeks, Cruz has defended remarks Trump made on immigrants over the past month that have drawn rebukes from leading Democrats and Republicans...."   "While other Republicans called Trump’s words 'offensive and inaccurate' (Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida) or   'extraordinarily ugly'  (former Florida governor Jeb Bush), Cruz praised Trump as someone who is 'terrific' and 'speaks the truth.'..."
  
And the Post quoted Trump as follows:   "Asked about Cruz in an interview over the weekend, Trump told The Washington Post, 'I really respect him for saying what he did.'...   Earlier this month on CNN, Trump said, 'I shouldn't say this because, I assume, he's an opponent, but the fact is he was very brave in coming out.'..."

TICKET TALK

Commenters to the article appearing on the Breitbart News blog were quick to mention and talk about the appeal of a Trump-Cruz ticket.

Fiorina says Hillary "Has blood on her hands" --- as issue of Benghazi E-mails again crops up for Hillary Clinton --- Two Clinton E-mails not turned over to Congressional Committee by State Department

Right to see the same E-mails sought by Congress was also in dispute in an in-court FOIA battle  

Republican Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina says that this is just the latest in a series of disclosures that showed Hillary Clinton repeatedly lied concerning her involvement in the Benghazi fiasco  

---  Ms. Fiorina went so far as to say Hillary Clinton has the blood of four dead Americans on her hands  ---  and all that's happened since is an attempted cover-up of that fact

According to a report in Politico, "The State Department has not turned over to congressional Benghazi investigators an email exchange between Hillary Clinton and top aides who were prepping the former secretary of state to discuss the 2012 terrorist attack with a U.S. senator....   The House Select Committee on Benghazi has confirmed to POLITICO that it does not have copies of two Sept. 29, 2012, emails between Clinton and her top policy staffer Jake Sullivan, chief of staff Cheryl Mills and spokesman Philippe Reines....  The emails — which surfaced last week in a State Department response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a conservative group — also mention the talking points for Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to a description of the messages in court documents...."  ( See "State has not turned over 2 Benghazi-related emails to Congress -- At issue: A pair of emails from Sept. 29, 2012" by Rachel Bade, 7/13/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/state-department-benghazi-committee-emails-congress-hillary-clinton-aides-120047.html]).

GOP memebers of the Benghazi Committee say that the only messages they have that are dated Sept. 29, 2012, are, essentially, news clips. And they’re blasting the State Department for not turning over the emails, and challenging the its right to keep them from the panel.
Benghazi committee spokesman Jamal Ware gave this statement to Politico:   “There is no legal privilege which protects the administration from embarrassing emails, emails that substantially impeach previous administration positions, or evidence of wholly contradictory statements by administration officials....   Chairman Gowdy believes these documents should have been produced to the Committee since the Committee is expressly charged with investigating all aspects of this administration’s response to the attacks in Benghazi including any efforts, however meager, to comply with congressional oversight....”

CARLY FIORINA USES DISCLOSURE ABOUT MISSING BENGHAZI E-MAILS TO MAKE CHARGE THAT "HILLARY CLINTON HAS BLOOD ON HER HANDS" FROM BENGHAZI DEATHS

At least one GOP presidential candidate was quick  o pounce on the most recent Benghazi-E-mail disclosure  --  Carly Fiorina.

Last night, Carly Fiorina said to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that  Hillary Clinton has “blood on her hands” over the deaths of the four Americans who died on Sept. 11, 2012....  Fiorina, argued further that Clinton “engaged in a gross dereliction of duty” and a “cover-up” regarding the situation in Benghazi.... ( See "Fiorina: Hillary Clinton ‘Has Blood on Her Hands’ Over Benghazi Deaths" by Al Weaver [with video link], 7/13/15, Daily Caller [ http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/13/fiorina-hillary-clinton-has-blood-on-her-hands-over-benghazi-deaths-video/]). At the time of the Megyn Kelly interview,  Ms. Fiorina was reacting to the then-recent disclosure that the State Department had not turned over Benghazi-related emails to Congress.

Rebutting the Clinton team's position that there is no "smoking gun,"  the Republican field's only femal candidate laid out her facts as if they were charges ans specifications against former Secretary Clinton ,  "Let’s go through this. Hillary Clinton says in a press conference recently, ‘Oh, I’m eager to turn over all the e-mails that the American people can see. Well, now we know the State Department hasn’t turned over all the e-mails. We also know those e-mails link Hillary Clinton and the State Department for the first time to the Susan Rice talking points. This was all a video and a demonstration. Do you remember — we now know on the night of September 11th, the State Department, the White House knew this was a pre-planned terrorist attack. two days later, Hillary Clinton stands over the bodies of the fallen and talks about a video. Susan Rice goes on television and says it’s a video, it’s a demonstration. Hillary Clinton later denies that she had anything to do with those talking points. False. She never revealed a private server in her basement until it was discovered. And then, when it was discovered, she wipes it clean nearly two years after she leaves the department of State. Megyn, I now think we now have enough information to understand that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state has engaged in gross dereliction of duty. She has engaged in a cover-up, and she has blood on her hands...."

CARLY FIORINA PROMISES TO BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON'S ROLE IN BENGHAZI  ---   OVER AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN

Ms. Fiorina made a point of telling Megyn Kelly that she intended to keep making these charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over and over, and over again during her campaign for the GOP nomination.

In the crowded field of Presidential candidate there are two names regularly making News --- Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders

Why not a Trump - Sanders race in November 2016 ?  ---   What are the chances ?

That thought is shaking up some of the pundits and all of the establishment  ---   Republican &  Democrat  ---   So they're pulling out the stops to avoid that match-up, if they can

"It’s a match-up borne of extremists’ fevered dreams: Trump vs. Sanders. Except it would be a disaster if it did."                                                                                            ---  Ana Marie Cox,  Daily Beast, 7/11/15 

HERE'S A LITTLE MORE OF WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY

Yesterday,  Ana Marie Cox of the Daily Beast said,  "Bernie Sanders is the Left’s Donald Trump....   Bear with me here. There is a lot they don’t have in common, including where they stand in their respective party’s polls—though Sanders’ slow creep into a distant second is likely to be more sustainable. Still, they have both managed to disrupt their respective nomination races, and they’ve done that because they both have a similar appeal: They’ve tapped into anti-establishment passions with rhetoric that is a kind of wish-fulfillment fantasy for some voters.  'He has the guts to say what others won’t'  could be the slogan for either of them....   I don’t want to gloss over the content of that gut-driven bluntness. In Trump’s case, just because he’s saying what others won’t doesn’t mean what he’s saying is true. And it’s fair to point out that Trump’s lowest-common-denominator xenophobia is a sugar high kind populism: it’s cheap and easily reproduced but difficult to sustain. Sanders, on the other hand, offers a chewier and less visceral version of “us-versus-them”: discussions about income inequality and financial regulatory policy don’t create the same kind of direct line to voters’ emotions that Trump’s talk of rapists and thieves travels on...."  (See  "Bernie Sanders Is The Left's Trump"  by Ana Marie Cox, 7/11/15, Daily Beast/ Thunderdome [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/11/bernie-sanders-is-the-left-s-trump.html]).

But, perhaps the most important thing that Ana Marie Cox said in her 7/11  article is this:  ".... The media is covering [Trump and Sanders] in a similar fashion, too, though that’s mainly a function of how the political media cover campaigns in general. The story is the process, not the messages or ideas. 'Analysis' consists of asking, 'What this will do the race?' and not, “'hat does it mean for voters?'..."

AND TODAY,  THE DAILY BEAST POUNDED BERNIE SANDERS WITH THE NRA AND TED NUGENT

Another guy writing for the Daily Beast  is trying to skewer Bernie Sanders with stuff like this:  "The left’s favorite presidential candidate defends his record on guns with the right's talking points—and even voted to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits....   Bernie Sanders is the tell-it-like-it-is candidate of the left’s dreams: He takes on “the billionaire class” and wants Medicare for all. Thousands are drawn to his unapologetically liberal (even democratic socialist) message at events in Iowa and New Hampshire. In both states he’s closing in or even tied with Hillary Clinton in presidential polls....   So why on the issue of guns is he parroting wholly inane, sometimes racist talking points from the National Rifle Association?... "  (See "Bernie Sanders Parrots the NRA" by Cliff Schecter, 7/12/15,  Daily Beast/ Shots Fired  [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/12/bernie-sanders-parrots-the-nra.html]).   The rest of the Schecter piece was a series of anecdotes and comparisons trying to link Bernie Sanders with  the likes of GOP Congressman Louis Gohmert and NRA advocate Ted Nugent  --  along with some very extreme anti-urban crime rhetoric of some other NRA/ gun rights  defenders.

Maybe it's me, but I'm detecting a theme here;  and it looks like it's coming from some Hillary Clinton oriented slime machine.

SIMILAR THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S HAVING HELD LIBERAL OR PROGRESSIVE POSITIONS

Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a feature on Donald Trump that pointed out that  "[p]erhaps no presidential candidate has the self-confidence he does, even in the face of some glaring flip-flops on his political positions. Where lesser candidates would dodge questions about why they've changed their mind or give a focus-group-tested line about how they evolved, Trump doesn't admit to ever having a different opinion....  He loved Hillary Clinton; now he thinks she's the worst. He was very much in favor of abortion rights before he opposed them. And he might be running as a Republican today, but he was once a registered Democrat who called for legalizing drugs, a massive one-time 14.25 percent tax on the wealthy and staying out of wars that didn't present a "direct threat" to the U.S. In many ways, he's been to the left of Clinton and even Bernie Sanders on some issues....   But in Trump's world, there is no truth but now.... "  (See "The many ways in which Donald Trump was once a liberal’s liberal"  by Hunter Schwarz, 7/9/15, Washington Post/ The Fix [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/]).

Hunter Schwartz then catalogued several of Donald Trumps more notable flip-flops,  including:   abortion rights, gun rights, healthcare, suppot of Hillary Clinton, support of Jeb Bush, party affiliation and  press availability.

STRANGE,  CONTRADICTORY AND TORTURED SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CANDIDATES   ---   WHO ARE  AT THE SAME TIME PORTRAYED AS POLAR OPPOSITES

It seems that the MSM and others want us to think some very strange and contradictory  things about both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders. With one breath, they tell us these two populists represent the polar opposite extremes of the political spectrum;   and that's a bad thing.  Then, with various bits and pieces of evidence, they try to show us that the same two guys are very much alike, either as liberals or as conservatives,  and that's  supposed to be bad too.

Maybe, there are some similarities between these two particular candidates.  Why would that be so odd?  However, what is being done  looks like a tortured methodology to achieve a false parity among the candidates, while simultaneously  trying to preserve the aura of their being polar opposites.
OK, let's go with all of that....    Still, there are many Americans who will think that a 2016 race between Donald Trump as the GOP candidate and Bernie Sanders as the Democrat's standard bearer might be just what the system needs to shake all the rust and cobwebs off  ---  regardless of what makes them alike,  completely different, or a little of this 'n' that.

Why was this a BAD WEEK for Hillary Clinton ? First and foremost she got caught lying again about her E-mails.... What more does she need ?

"I NEVER HAD A SUBPOENA..."  is  such a breathtaking lie, what made Hillary say it ? 

Brianna Keilar's first exclusive TV interview with Hillary on CNN was a lose, Lose, LOSE deal for the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Hillary Clinton and the HRC Campaign(s)  need another roll-out and reintroduction ASAP --- things are still not working-out for her so far in this campaign

It was supposed to be an easy first interview, with a hand-picked interviewer on a friendly network. How did everything go so wrong so fast?  By mid-week Hillary had an albatross hanging around her neck and the right wing media was hooting and  cat-calling, and doing hand-stands and back-flips.

The big albatross around Hillary Clinton's neck is that she said this in her interview with CNN'S Brianna Keilar:  "...   I've never had a subpoena.  There is - again, let's take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.  I had one device.  When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system....  Now I didn't have to turn over anything...."   [The complete interview segment about the E-mails is below at  ***]

Now, the only "Correct the Record" debate anybody can have about any of this is whether it's  >>>  ONE BIG LIE <<<   or   >>>  SEVERAL LIES STITCHED TOGETHER <<<

HILLARY'S BIG LIE WAS AN UNFORCED ERROR THAT SHOWS HOW BAD A "CANDIDATE" HILLARY CLINTON REALLY IS

Several thing s came out of the whole interview.  Generally, with all of her mugging and posturing, Hillary gave a real live visible demonstration why a majority of the country doesn't like or trust her.
The big take away is that the former Secretary of State waded into the quicksand about her E-mails and all;  and Mrs' Clinton  showed that she still has no satisfactory answers about what she did with her E-mails, exactly, or why she did it.  What's worse for her and her campaign is that she showed her natural inclination and propensity to lie about things when she feels cornered.

CNN's Brianna Keilar did not have the reputation of being a tough interviewer, but in her interview of Hillary Clinton last week, she was tough enough to give  Hillary Clinton a tough time, and make her look really bad.   ---    As bad as anyone since Sarah Palin had her tough time with Katie Couric in 2008.

Even when the interview ended on a lighter note with comparisons of SNL's Amy Poeler  versus Kate Mc Kinnon as the better "Hillary Clinton";  and Hillary saying that she was the best "Hillary Clinton." One thing shined through  ---   The real Hillary had only one thing right   >>>  She' s  a  not ready for prime-time player  ---  certainly when it comes to TV interviews.
__________________________

***   Here's the Clinton-Keilar interview segment about the E-mails ( From [http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/07/cnn-exclusive-hillary-clintons-first-national-interview-of-2016-race/]):
KEILAR:  One of the issues that has eroded some trust that we've seen is the issue of your email practices while you were secretary of state.  I think there's a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that.
Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?
CLINTON:  Well, let's start from the beginning.  Everything I did was permitted.  There was no law.  There was no regulation.  There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.  Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing.  And people across the government knew that I used one device - maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
KEILAR:  But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and --   KEILAR:  - subpoena deleted emails from them?
CLINTON:  You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena.  There is - again, let's take a deep breath here.  Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.  I had one device.  When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.
Now I didn't have to turn over anything.  I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.
And now I think it's kind of fun.  People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.
KEILAR:  Wearing warm socks, you said to John Podesta.
CLINTON:  Exactly and - or, you know -
KEILAR:  Working a fax machine -
CLINTON:  - yes, a secure fax machine, which is harder to work than the regular.
So yes, this is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact.  That's fine.  I get it.  This is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress, OK.  But I want people to understand what the truth is.  And the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them.
And I had no obligation to do any of that.  So let's set the record straight.  And those 55,000 pages, they will be released over the course of this year.  People  can, again, make their own judgments.
[KEILAR:]  I know you say you were permitted.  I just am trying to understand some of the thought process behind it.  One former state attorney general, a Democrat, told CNN that they know of no lawyer who would advise someone, a client, facing the kind of scrutiny that you've been facing to wipe their server.
I mean, what do you say to that?
CLINTON:  Well, what I say to that is turned over everything I was obligated to turn over.  And then I moved on.  People delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis.  I turned over everything that I could imagine.
Now being - sitting in a meeting in the State Department, asking for iced tea, may not rise to the level of negotiating peace, but I went above and beyond.  That's why there's 55,000 pages of my emails.
And so I think people have an interesting time behind the scenes.  And all I can tell you is that the law, the regulation did not in any way stand in my way of being permitted to do what I did.  And as I said, prior secretaries of state - I mean, Secretary Powell has admitted he did exactly the same thing.
So I think both Secretary Powell and I are viewed as public servants.  We do our very best to serve our country and he's - he has such a distinguished records.  You know, I have served my country as well.
We both did the same thing.  Now years have passed, so he clearly doesn't have anything left.  I did everything I could to make sure people got anything that was related that I had.
[End of segment]"