Hillary Clinton appears to have “violated numerous State Department rules by using privately owned thumb drives to copy 30,000 of her official emails for her lawyer.” The Daily Caller,
The former Secretary of State in December 2014 downloaded 30,000 government emails created during her tenure in the position from her private server onto three commercial thumb drives, which her lawyer, David Kendall, transported to Washington, D.C…
In transferring her emails to private thumb drives, Clinton violated a slew of federal regulations, including those of her own State Department.
The State Department’s Foreign Affairs manual prohibits the storage of classified material on any external drive, stating, “the flash drive may only be used for the transfer of unclassified files.” Flash and thumb drives are treated inter-changeably by the rules.
Further, unclassified material must be on a “department owned” drive, not a personal or private sector drive.
President Obama once boasted that his presidency brought about the “most transparent administration in history.” His claim has since been contradicted by reality—from Hillary Clinton on down. The Wall Street Journal,
Since the 1960s the government has been subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), giving citizens the right to view those records. In 2009 the National Archives issued rules requiring agencies to preserve employee work on nonofficial accounts in a government record-keeping system.
Then came the Obama Administration, whose modus operandi has been to hide from this legal regime. This year the world learned that Hillary Clinton conducted most of her correspondence as Secretary of State on a private, homemade email system that she failed to disclose and kept away from the federal government…
In August the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a motion in court to gain access to the private email account of White House science czar John Holdren, who may have used it for government work. Some years ago CEI helped bring to light that then-EPA Chief Lisa Jackson used a secret alias, “ Richard Windsor,” when emailing on the EPA system. This seemed designed to thwart FOIA requests for her conversations, since “Lisa Jackson” appeared nowhere on her emails.
In 2013 an Associated Press report revealed the practice was rampant among Administration officials, including the Secretaries of Agriculture, Labor, and Health & Human Services. All had secret government email accounts that neither Congress nor the public knew about.
Hillary Clinton is losing ground to Bernie Sanders in Iowa, and losing popularity among voters. That reality has many Democrats questioning why Clinton’s primary bid made any sense in the first place. The Atlantic,
[Clinton] shares their views on issues as varied as preserving Obamacare, abortion rights, extending legal status to undocumented workers, strengthening labor unions, and imposing a carbon tax to slow climate change. But most Democrats hold similar positions on those issues. So why are Democrats supporting her in a primary bid? She’s awful on other issues they’ve deemed hugely important.
Most Democrats regard the Iraq War as a historic disaster. Clinton voted for that conflict…
Along with the Iraq War, Democrats disdained George W. Bush for the Patriot Act, his expansive views on executive power, and his awful record on transparency. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act. She shows every sign of embracing a similarly expansive view of executive power. And she took extraordinary steps to shield her emails from federal public-records and freedom of information laws.
Then there are her financial backers.
Many Democrats are sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street and to the notion that wealthy special interests on Wall Street are rigging the system by buying off politicians. Who is more bought off than Clinton? It isn’t just her campaign coffers and her family’s foundation that benefit from Wall Street money. Her family’s private accounts are flush with funds from big banks, including at least one that benefitted from her tenure at State and paid her husband seven figures for a speaking gig. It is naive to think that she won’t look out for the interests of Big Finance in Washington.
Last week, Obamacare enrollees were told to expect large spikes in their health insurance premiums. But, those paying any attention to the (Un)Affordable Care Acts, the announcement should have come as no surprise. The Daily Caller,
Meanwhile, as Americans are suffering from rising costs and less access to quality health care, the biggest winners from the passage of Obamacare are the insurance giants. In the aftermath of the government health care takeover, there has been an explosion of health insurance company profits, windfalls and megamergers. As “stock market darlings,” health insurance company profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs and stocks have split even thanks to the health care law.
Reports show the so-called “Big Five” health insurers – UnitedHealth, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and Anthem – have all outperformed the broader stock market by a wide margin since Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. That’s why America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main trade group, filed an amicus brief to defend the Obama administration in the recent Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell. And when the law was upheld, it was no surprise that there was a boost in health insurance company stocks.
The reality is that health insurance companies are growing wealthier and less accountable for their actions under Obamacare, and hard-working American families are paying the price. Americans don’t need more cronyism when it comes to their health care. Americans need competition to improve quality and lower cost. It’s time for new leadership in the White House to rein in insurance companies’ runaway power and address the challenges we face under this deeply flawed law so we can finally give the American people the transparency and accountability they were promised.