Type to search

Revealed: Hillary Emails Are Scandalously Mundane

Memo Pad Top News

Revealed: Hillary Emails Are Scandalously Mundane

Share

For those Americans who haven’t dived into the 7,121 pages of Hillary Clinton emails that were made public last week, here’s a summary based on a modest sampling:

Boring.

I mean throw-away-your-Ambiens boring.

The dreaded chore of slogging through every one of these messages falls to the staff of congressional Republicans who are trying to bust Hillary for leaking or hiding sensitive information while she was secretary of state.

Material was withheld from about 125 of her emails because the State Department retroactively classified it as “confidential.” The rest of the emails (and this was just one batch) are being dissected page by page, line by line.

And you thought your job sucked.

Among the early highlights is a series of emails about Hillary’s struggle to operate a fax machine. Here, I swear, is the actual exchange:

Hillary: I’ve done it twice now.

Clinton aide: Just pick up the phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up.

Hillary: I did.

Aide: Yes but hang up one more time. So they can reestablish the line.

Hillary: I thought it was supposed to be off-hook to work?

Before getting too snarky about this, let’s admit that most of us have done battle with uncooperative fax machines. However, the average person wouldn’t take the receiver off the hook and then expect the device to start ringing.

Because, see, it’s a phone. You need to hang up first.

Another private email from a close assistant, recounted in the Washington Post, arrived on Hillary’s computer with the following “Subject” noted:

Since the Secretary of State likes to track such things — The Associated Press: Rocker Juanes’ wife gives birth to son in Miami.

Is Hillary really a fan of Juanes, or is this seemingly innocent email a cleverly coded message about Benghazi?

As the GOP’s crack investigators will undoubtedly figure out, the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound took place three years after Juanes and his wife welcomed baby Dante into the world.

Evidently the email was nothing more than what it appeared to be — important breaking news that required the secretary of state’s immediate attention. She digs the man’s music.

There are plenty of emails to and from Hillary about heavy global situations, from Iran to Burma to Pakistan. These will, and should, be scrutinized. Some might even produce headlines.

Thousands of other emails won’t ever be seen. They were wiped from Hillary’s private server because, she said, they were strictly “personal” in nature.

Yet this one, from the secretary of state to then-Chief of Protocol Capricia Marshall, somehow squeaked through:

Hillary: Can you contact your protocol friend in China and ask him if I could get photos of the carpets of the rooms I met in w/POTUS (President Obama) during the recent trip? I loved their design and the way they appeared carved. Any chance we can get this?

Unless it comes out in the upcoming congressional hearings, we’ll probably never know if Hillary ended up scoring a cool Chinese carpet. Possibly the answer was contained in one of those suspiciously erased emails.

The mysterious “private server” used by Hillary for contacting aides and officials was diabolically registered as @clintonemail.com. That’s called hiding in plain sight.

Yet, somehow, the State Department Help Desk didn’t know Hillary’s private email address. What should we make of this?

On the one hand, it’s kind of cute that the State Department actually has a Help Desk. On the other hand, someone who needs to contact the Help Desk to find the secretary of state isn’t necessarily someone the secretary of state should be talking to.

All those wretched, underpaid souls who have been assigned to grind through the Hillary emails get occasional light breaks in the monotony.

When a person wearing a Hillary Clinton mask robbed a Virginia bank, an aide dutifully notified the secretary of state.

“Should I be flattered?” she joked.

One of her lawyers soon weighed in via email, reporting that other bank robbers had used masks of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. “We appear to be the first Democrat, however,” he said.

That’s a genuine deadpan punchline, much appreciated by hard-working professional scrutinizers.

Unfortunately, the State Department has released only one-fourth of Hillary’s emails so far, which means there are many more thousands to come.

Stay tuned, America. Caffeine is your friend.

(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132.)

Photo illustration: National Memo (via)

Tags:
Carl Hiaasen

Carl Hiaasen is an award-winning journalist, commentator, and novelist. Hiaasen has worked for the Miami Herald since 1976, and his writing focuses on environmental and corruption issues in his home state of Florida.

His latest book is Skink—No Surrender (2014).

  • 1

55 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila September 8, 2015

    The overwhelming majority of Hillary’s e-mails involve what most people do when they are on travel, or planning to travel, and when we are away from our families. Claims such as “some of the information she received or disseminated is NOW classified” is nothing more than evidence of exasperation. Unfortunately for Hillary, and for the United States since she is, by far, the most qualified of all the candidates running, the disinformation campaign against her has been so effective, and the reluctance of the media to challenge the claims against her so obvious, that her credibility has been damaged to the point that she may very well become a liability if she is the Democratic party nominee. Bernie Sanders did not become the front runner in New Hampshire because he is a known commodity, he did because more and more Democrats are realizing that we either play it safe or we risk losing the White House. The wild card, or more accurately, the white knight that will save the day for Democrats, is Joe Biden, with either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as running mate.

    Reply
  2. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

    This isn’t about Hillary’s emails or even about Hillary. It’s about a country that has been so male dominated for more than 2 centuries that the very thought of overturning that dominance to a female has some of the most egotistical men in the US playing Mohammed Ali, champion boxer just to keep the status quo.

    Let’s be honest. Hillary represents in all men what they dread most: total equality. It’s the reason that the ERA has yet to become law. So, let’s get to the real root of the problem. Why men cannot think as “persons” instead of MEN.

    It has been their lot in existence to instigate wars, poverty, greed and now, they recognize that women are “getting just a little too prominent” for their egos to manage. They will NEVER NEVER admit his. But, even the most intelligent, intellectual men patronize women by play acting at how they “agree” that women are equal. These are perhaps, the most dangerous men for women to deal with.

    The reality is that in 2015, women have, can and do without a man’s help. It was so much better when men could rely on their dominance over the planet.

    This is NOT about Hillary. It’s about men attempting to put a stop to women EVER trying to be No. 1. Hillary is the antithesis of what men believe women should always be: No. 2.

    Even if Hillary doesn’t win this election, these same nuclear males will dredge up their WMDs (Women Made Dumb) arsenals of weapons to insure Mr. Male remains Numero Uno.

    So..they tried to expose Hillary and found what most women already knew: She has a boring Second Place life these men believe is all she should ever be entitled to.

    There is so much more at stake for women in the US in this coming election. The reason these males hate HIllary? She fights as dirty as a man. She has male wired brains…oh big surprise…Like most women in the world don’t.

    So on the boys go with their “can’t trust Hillary,” “Hillary is a liar,” and “Hillary is dishonest BS.” And what precisely are they proving to women in the US when they carry on like little boys pulling tantrums?

    They show women that these are men who much prefer the same kind of restrictive existence for women that ISIS and Sharia law imposes. Too bad this time around these guys are not going to get their way.

    If you thought the sabotage of the Obama presidency was bad, the Hillary presidency will have these boys working overtime in desperation to take her down. And all they will have proved is what women have always known…men cannot think outside their own gender. Meaning, they can’t think as “persons,” only as MEN.

    Reply
    1. Kurt CPI September 8, 2015

      You are truly the most bullied person in the world. I’m certain you have found that every instance in your life that didn’t work out as you had planned was someone else’s fault, and that everyone at fault was white, male and affiliated with the kkk, world bank, the Bush campaign, Fox News and had at one time been involved in demonstrations advocating for the oppression of women and minorities. Of course it’s widely known that all white men kill baby seals, beat their wives and vote Republican.

      How sad.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

        Again…thinking with your MALE brain instead of your PERSON brain. You don’t like what I posted because at the core of your male ego, you know every word is tru.

        Sorry, but I have my entire lifetime surrounded by men to educate me to the vagaries the males of the species use to get their way on their path to domination.

        As for me being bullied…try again. Like Hillary, I give men as good as I get. I’m as tough as nails, proud as hell of it and don’t really care which man is offended by it.

        The reality for men today is that they are no longer the reigning kings of humanity. For every man who attempts such domination, there’s a woman who has already won the battle.

        How sad that a mind like yours is all too male and not much of a Person. I’m guessing that with that mentality, you feel if you can’t slather yourself in maleness, you might just not be able to be the warrior you think you are. Truth is what guys hate most. The proof of that is everywhere.

  3. itsfun September 8, 2015

    I wonder how boring the emails that have blacked out sections and words are?

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

      So, in your feeblemindedness, Hillary should have allowed the entire world to have personal names and addresses and other private information out there just so you can sit in judgment on who she is friends with, who she lunches with and who she spends her all too little free time with. How very MAN of you to have such a beak nose in personal business. Now, tell us all your home address, your kids names, your friends names and addresses..we promise we won’t block them out in your emails. Get to it or clam up.

      1. itsfun September 8, 2015

        I doubt if anybody cares one little bit about who she has lunch with, or who her friends are. I do care that as a Administrative staff member she allowed US classified documents to be in danger. Apparently you think is is ok to allow North Korea, Russia, China and who ever to have access to our nations national secrets as long as a woman allows it. How would you feel about a man allowing this to happen?
        I am not running for President. However I can keep my documents secure and not available to any one. I can’t say that about Hillary.
        Calling someone names like feeblemindedness is just a sign of a weak mind trying to express its self.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

          Do you always evade answering direct questions? Tell your home address…and answer the damn question.

          There is and was nothing in Hillary’s emails that was classified. According to the Justice Dept. there are NO classified emails.

          You can’t run for president. Your balls hang too low, which is why you are so hateful toward any woman who dares to step ahead of you.

          What I think is that you are picking gnat “sh.t” out of a cow meadow. You are the one who is feebleminded. But do keep on with your Mr. Man routine. When you get to Sharia Law No. 10, I’ll be sure to remind you how your Mutton Chops ideas of where women’s places in this world are is Neanderthalian.

          1. itsfun September 8, 2015

            You just continue to call names and ignore the facts. There were classified emails and you know it. Your idea of a discussion is to call names and try to bully people. Its not working and it won’t. You are making things up as you go along. Show anywhere I have said anything about a woman’s place in the world or elsewhere. Your hatred of men just keeps showing up in every one of your posts. It must be terrible to live with that much hate. Why don’t you post your address?

          2. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

            Okay…now you are down to the wire. If you post again without facts, you will only make a fool of yourself.

            I always call liars liars. You are a liar. But, now I’m calling YOU OUT…show me where in Justice Dept. or State Dept. records, in quotes, the classified emails or other violations.

            Balls in your court buster. You’d better get to work finding those “facts” you think you know so well. In quotes, from the government source. Not some Fox News or other BS Mutton Chops state or Corn Pone state bias.

          3. itsfun September 8, 2015

            Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

            By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTSEPT. 7, 2015

            Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
            work-related emails from when she was secretary of state are slowly
            being released by the State Department.

            Credit
            Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press

            WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons
            program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the
            intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified
            information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence
            officials said.

            Mrs.
            Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the
            inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails
            had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review
            — by the Central Intelligence Agency
            and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the
            emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government
            intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.
            Insights, and Redactions, in Latest Release of Hillary Clinton’s EmailsAUG. 31, 2015

            On
            Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the
            intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often
            have different views of what should be considered classified.

            Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails from when she was secretary of state are slowly being released by the State Department.

            “Our
            hope remains that these releases continue without being hampered by
            bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community, and that the
            releases continue to be as inclusive and transparent as possible,” said
            Nick Merrill, a campaign spokesman.

            John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.

            “Classification
            is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State
            Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to
            arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often
            both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire
            information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there
            can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on
            classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification
            of the documents in question would be premature.”

            The
            intelligence review is the latest development in continuing
            reverberations over Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account
            for her public business when she was secretary of state, which gave her
            some control over what was made public. She faced criticism when the
            account became known this year, and after deleting what she said were
            more than 31,000 personal messages turned over more than 30,000
            work-related emails for the State Department to make public.

            Mrs.
            Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was
            marked classified — having classified information outside a secure
            government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with
            an F.B.I. investigation
            to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly
            classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She
            herself is not a target of the investigation.

            I. Charles McCullough III,
            the inspector general for the intelligence community, found the two
            emails containing what he determined was “Top Secret” information in the
            course of reviewing a sampling of 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s work-related
            emails for potential security breaches.

            The
            senior intelligence officials briefed on the findings of the review
            spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to
            jeopardize their access to sensitive information.

            President
            Obama signed an executive order in December 2009 that defined “Top
            Secret” as information that if disclosed could “reasonably” be expected
            to cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

            In
            the months after the disclosure, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign were
            unequivocal in their stance that there was no classified information on
            it. But after it was revealed in August that the F.B.I. was
            investigating how classified materials were handled in connection with
            the account, Mrs. Clinton’s aides began saying that she never sent or
            received anything that was classified at the time.

            A version of this article appears in print on September 8, 2015, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Findings on Emails to Clinton Reaffirmed. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe

          4. righteous mob September 8, 2015

            Schmidt — the same journalistic brainiac who broke the “Clinton is under criminal investigated by the FBI” bs for the increasingly incredible NYT.

          5. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

            Those of us who l ive in the Metro Area know why the NYT is growing ever more skanky. The influence is coming from the new management of the NYT who just happens to be in on the Great Corporate Connection.

          6. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

            Slowly being released….should I laugh at you now? Or wait until you provide what I demand you provide…That a single one of those emails will land her in jail. What a phony you are.

            The AP account is old. The State Dept. and Justice Dept. have already reviewed all of her emails. It’s been all over the media that Gowdy is on a Roy Cohn/McCarthy style witch hunt for the Koch boys who know Hillary is their WORST nightmare.

            You proved zip. Try again and this time don’t use BS biased sources.

            Get this and get it straight. If you don’t provide one single line of fact that states Hillary is going to jail, you’d better learn to take a step behind the women in this country. Your Sharia Law BS has gone far enough. You’ve got nothing credible.

          7. itsfun September 9, 2015

            If you don’t like a article it automatically becomes bias and not credible. It has been shown without a doubt that Hillary had top secret documents on her personal server. The justice department is the one that reported her security breaches. If there are phonies here its you. You have been proven wrong and just try to yell and bully yourself out of it. Your name calling and trying to be a big bad bully just doesn’t work anymore. You forgot the FBI is also investigating Hillary. You will try to say its not a criminal investigation. What does the FBI investigate that is not criminal? They don’t investigate shop lifting or speeding tickets, only possible federal crimes. They are investigating Hillary for possible federal crimes. You can yell and scream all you want, but facts are facts and you calling reporters not credible because you don’t like what they report just doesn’t mean a darn thing. You are like someone that just can play the race card, the only difference is you try to play a gender card and try to create a imaginary war on women. If you weren’t so obvious with your BS, it would be funny.

          8. tomtype September 8, 2015

            So we can’t believe the Justice Dept, we can’t believe the state department? Because you “know” there must have been classified emails. You weren’t there, but you know. You know so much you know no thing.
            But you want to have something wrong. Why, well because it is Hillary. And if it turns out there were no classified emails, you might look the fool for “knowing.”

          9. bobnstuff September 8, 2015

            She should have used a government server like the IRS. Snowden didn’t get her e mails. How much faith do you have in the governments use of tec. This is the same government that couldn’t build a web sight to sell insurance.

          10. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

            So should George W. Bush. Dickhead Cheney, Nanny Rice and Rumsfeld. The more these idiots of the right push Hillary, the worse their consequences will be. That entire “secret” Bush administration will blow wide open and Bush and Cheney will end up in prison. They, not Hillary, are the boys who had and have the most to hide.

          11. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

            Itsfun is a paid troll Know it All. You know the type. You look up and see a blue sky and ItsFun says, “The sky is red.”

            Perhaps, if McMommy reddened his butt for trying to get away with his childish, petty BS, he won’t be such a nerdy troll who gets paid to contradict. What a pathetic existence that must be! Wake up every day and have to concoct more contradictions of fact.

            These guys are a butt on the boil of humanity.

    2. 788eddie September 8, 2015

      Fortunately, you will never know (and neither will I).

  4. itsfun September 8, 2015

    Saw on the news this morning that some emails had classified info on them when she received them and at least 2 contained Top Secret info.

    Reply
    1. Name September 8, 2015

      What news agency did you get this info or misinfo ?
      Don’t tell me faux news or I might puke, lol.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

        He makes it up as he goes. Like all numbnuts right wingers who are so perfect they are the only infallible human saints walking planet earth…mental hospitals are full of guys like him.

    2. tomtype September 8, 2015

      So far, 17 emails which were not classified at the time, have been now classiied. There was nothing in the law at the time that sahid she couldn’t have her server. Since then Congress has passed a law, and are now trying to apply it retroactively.

      1. itsfun September 8, 2015

        Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

        By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTSEPT. 7, 2015

        Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
        work-related emails from when she was secretary of state are slowly
        being released by the State Department.

        Credit
        Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press

        WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons
        program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the
        intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified
        information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence
        officials said.

        Mrs.
        Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the
        inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails
        had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review
        — by the Central Intelligence Agency
        and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the
        emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government
        intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

        On
        Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the
        intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often
        have different views of what should be considered classified.
        Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails from when she was secretary of state are slowly being released by the State Department.

        “Our
        hope remains that these releases continue without being hampered by
        bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community, and that the
        releases continue to be as inclusive and transparent as possible,” said
        Nick Merrill, a campaign spokesman.

        John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.

        “Classification
        is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State
        Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to
        arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often
        both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire
        information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there
        can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on
        classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification
        of the documents in question would be premature.”

        The
        intelligence review is the latest development in continuing
        reverberations over Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account
        for her public business when she was secretary of state, which gave her
        some control over what was made public. She faced criticism when the
        account became known this year, and after deleting what she said were
        more than 31,000 personal messages turned over more than 30,000
        work-related emails for the State Department to make public.

        Mrs.
        Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was
        marked classified — having classified information outside a secure
        government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with
        an F.B.I. investigation
        to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly
        classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She
        herself is not a target of the investigation.

        I. Charles McCullough III,
        the inspector general for the intelligence community, found the two
        emails containing what he determined was “Top Secret” information in the
        course of reviewing a sampling of 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s work-related
        emails for potential security breaches.

        The
        senior intelligence officials briefed on the findings of the review
        spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to
        jeopardize their access to sensitive information.

        President
        Obama signed an executive order in December 2009 that defined “Top
        Secret” as information that if disclosed could “reasonably” be expected
        to cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

        In
        the months after the disclosure, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign were
        unequivocal in their stance that there was no classified information on
        it. But after it was revealed in August that the F.B.I. was
        investigating how classified materials were handled in connection with
        the account, Mrs. Clinton’s aides began saying that she never sent or
        received anything that was classified at the time.

        A version of this article appears in print on September 8, 2015, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Findings on Emails to Clinton Reaffirmed. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe

  5. FT66 September 8, 2015

    I think it is waste of time and money to do the digging on emails. Any voter understands it is all about witch hunt. If it was about how she performed her tenure as Secretary of State, this could have been done as soon as she finished her duties. Am glad democrats are not buying all these email debacle, thats why she remains the frontrunner and will continue to be so.

    Reply
    1. Lelandjames September 8, 2015

      Sorry, wrong once more

      1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

        No need to be sorry. Women comprise 52% of the US population. Hell hath no fury like a woman blamed for that which she is not guilty.

        This is not about Hillary. Or Hillary’s emails. It’s about men who can’t stand ANY woman being No. 1. It’s about men who will hang their mothers on a wash line, if necessary to keep any woman from ever being their authority….and ooooooh doesn’t that kill little twits like Issa, Gowdy, Cotton and the rest of the Mutton Chops Brigade?

  6. Carolyn1520 September 8, 2015

    I think they should make that freak Darryl Issa read them all. He never found a faux scandal he didn’t like to perpetuate.

    Reply
  7. Sundance98 September 8, 2015

    Yeah….we really wanted to know how many “Free Pizza’s” the Hillary staff got for those late night meetings! In the name of National Security, of course!

    Reply
  8. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

    The idea is to get rid of Hillary. And, by association all women who get any ideas they can steal the No. 1 position in the US from a white, middle aged male. These guys will say and do anything short of murder (or assassination) to insure that no woman overturns their 235+ years of domination in government and business.

    So ladies…You earn 77 cents for every $1 a man earns for doing the same or more work. Yet, the minute a woman who has all the same dirty fighting instincts as any man wants to be president, not even her panties are safe from their prying eyes.

    Don’t be fooled. This is NOT about Hillary. It’s about women like Hillary who are fed up with always being in No. 2 position.

    Reply
    1. Saturdayschild September 8, 2015

      Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s always men first; never ladies first, right?

      1. tomtype September 8, 2015

        No, the woman goes through the door first, so if an assassin is waiting, he doesn’t shoot the man?

        1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

          I think that men and women can be equally courteous to each other. What’s the real symbolism of “ladies first?” So the guy can get a good look at her derriere to see if she’s a “keeper?”

          1. Saturdayschild September 9, 2015

            You’re kidding, right?

      2. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

        Have you ever actually been on a NY City subway? Men don’t believe in ladies first. Not even the old fogies who are the first to grab for a seat. Furthermore, women today do not want men to open doors or play ladies first games. I’ve held doors for men as often as they hold them for me. That’s equality my friend. Now, children? That’s a different story. They always go first.

        1. Saturdayschild September 9, 2015

          I haven’t been on a NY subway in years, but maybe feminism has killed gentlemanly behavior. Don’t kid yourself; most women today want it all, and they like men to treat them like superiors. If you’ve held doors for men as often as men have held doors for you, then you’re butch enough to be mistaken for a man. Too many men are too chivalrous to ever allow a lady to lower herself in that respect. Like all feminazis, your narrow vision will never recognize the privileges that females have over males.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker September 9, 2015

            First of all, who decided “gentlemanly” behavior was a necessity? That right there goes to show all women that it’s just an act. The same men who play the role of “gentlmenly” are the same men who don’t mind that same women they hold a door for to haul out the trash. Who’s playing acting?

            Courtesy has NO gender. If a man has to play act at being courteous only to women and not everyone, your ploy of acting like a gentleman is phony and most women today know that’s just a man’s way of showing her she is weak.

            You Man-O-Nazis, make me laugh. You are such a bunch of phonies. You bellow like grizzlies in heat when something doesn’t go YOUR way at any woman you live or work with. Then, you pull out her chair? How phony do you plan to get? Or does it take an Oscar for that performance to show you women today are YOUR equals. Try again hot shot.

            No man needs to pull out a chair for me. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself and the next time you decide to play act “gentlemenly,” reverse roles and see how you’d like it if social grace insisted on the same rules for women.

          2. Saturdayschild September 9, 2015

            Gentlemanly behavior is not a necessity, but neither is courtesy and respect. I never did like the idea of gentlemanly behavior anyway, so how you got the idea that I approved this makes you presumptuous. Traditional etiquette demanded such ideas as ladies first, which makes them superior to men in formal society. If it were “men first”, the tradition would have died away long ago. Too many women like “ladies first”, and too many men feel the need to please them, so this femisexist tradition stubbornly persists.
            You feminazis are all alike; you argue that men have all the advantages, and women have all the woes. Honey, wake up to reality, and get out of your cloud.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker September 10, 2015

            There is NOTHING presumptious about gender equality. Traditional etiquette is a lost art among our millennials. It has been since the 60s, when women realized courtesy had not gender.

            You manonazis are scared silly that a woman in No. 1 position will drop you off your Universal Domination of Planet Earth. How childish do you need to get?

            Men and women are equal in brain power and THAT is all that’s important. What you fogie males want is a return to the days when men’s voices were all the world heard. Sorry…that went out with the 1800s.

            The reality is that men own the lion’s share of businesses to this very day, not because they are better business owners..because they do not believe women should EVER own anything without a man behind it. Admit it.

            What you men need to face is that your all male world dominance games are causing more men in the US to lose jobs to women. Why? Because you men pay women 77 cents for every $1 you pay a man. You did this to yourselves. All your silly cut throat, dog eat dog games and now you outpriced yourselves out of the job markets.

            The younger male millennials have no problem with women in leadership. That means only fogies like you do.

            You ManoNazis act as if blindness and deafness occur only the minute you see or hear a woman in your presence who is in authority.

            Get used to it. Men like you are about to go into “gender shock.”

          4. Saturdayschild September 10, 2015

            You’re an obsessive, narrow-minded misandrist. If you had had a satisfactory sex life, I’m sure you wouldn’t be so critical and presumptuous of men today.

          5. Eleanore Whitaker September 10, 2015

            Let me let you in on a little woman’s secret that will likely set women back 500 years…There is NO and I do mean NO woman who can’t have any man she wants. Sorry, if the female mind is so extraordinarily strategic. But, you see savvy women who are financially independent rarely obsess over any man. Especially, when men go to such lengths to try and hit on them. You presume wrong. I’ve had my share of great guys in my life. I don’t treat men as sex objects. Men do enough of that to women. And, with men like you, it’s not the kill, it’s the thrill of the chase. Sorry, but you’ll need to seek your thrills with a less savvy woman.

    2. 788eddie September 8, 2015

      Hi, Eleanore. It’s me again; your demographic (white, male, middle-aged [actually, I’m sixty-seven, but I count myself still in the middle]). I find that I, sadly, am in agreement with you once again. This wholly manufactured email thing is like Benghazi, Whitewater and others. Republican Conservatives (and, in disclosure – I am a registered Republican) have been very effective at denigrating anyone they target (currently Hillary R. Clinton).

      Let’s hope that the majority are clear-headed enough to see through these dishonest attempts to smear someone who may end up being an excellent president.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker September 8, 2015

        No woman likes to see any grown man make a fool of himself. How many times are these guys going to try to nab Hillary before they step over the line and she sues one of them for libel and slander?

        It is never a good idea to go around slandering anyone, much less a high profile woman like Hillary who has a JD in law.

        Neither men nor women are ever infallible. We know that. But, in their rush to judge Hillary more harshly than they judge their own, they are doing precisely what ISIS does to women and what Sharia Law does when it restricts women from making their own decisions and having equal freedom.

        I choose to believe that there are many men who are decent, honest and quite intelligent. I’ve known some of them. They are not the gamers, the skulkers, the judgmentalists or the impose their values on women, only to create double standards.

        The world is changing. If women are not going to be allowed to be more than 2nd class citizens with everything filtered through the prism of manhood, how is that ever real progress?

  9. alansnipes September 8, 2015

    These are obviously part of the cover up of Benghazi!!!

    Reply
    1. Name September 8, 2015

      Yeah right, obviously, LMAO. You really trust those old white republikkkaniars and schemers? Really?

  10. John Murchison September 8, 2015

    as with all Clintonesque scandals…where there is smoke…there’s no fire.

    Reply
  11. nicole_booker September 8, 2015

    I want to show this great %internet job opportunity… 3 to 5 hrs of work /a day… Once a week payment… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of 6-9 thousand dollars /a month… Merely several h of your free time, desktop or laptop, elementary knowledge of www and reliable internet-connection is what is needed…Have a visit to my disqus_profile for more info

    Reply
  12. Otto Greif September 8, 2015

    The email about impeaching Clarence Thomas isn’t mundane.

    Reply
    1. latebloomingrandma September 8, 2015

      Where did you read about that one?

      1. Otto Greif September 8, 2015

        The New York Times.

    2. Paul Bass September 8, 2015

      Otto, did you even read the article about “that” email?

      An associate of HC sent her an email about a NY Times article!!! So of course you would read in the Times!!!

      The article is also by David Brock, a known RWNJ sleazebag, discussing the Anita Hill/porno issue Clearance Thomas had, having little to do with impeachment, but that was the David Brock generated headline in the NYT.

      So yes, you are an idiot if you think THIS email has ANY substance to it.

      Gee Otto, why don’t you grow up, or go peddle your lies to Fox.

      1. Otto Greif September 8, 2015

        Brock switched teams a long time ago, he founded Media Matters. The associate was the scumbag Sidney Blumenthal, who Obama wouldn’t let Hillary officially hire as an adviser. Clearly he and Hillary found the notion of impeaching Clarence Thomas worth considering, which is noteworthy.

        1. Paul Bass September 8, 2015

          Exactly otto, you are proving my point!

          Most folks realize that INCOMING email you have no control over. This email was from Sid, commenting on the David Brock article IN the NYT.

          So, as you note, HRC gets an email, from a scumbag, about an article written in the NYT by a scumbag about Clarence Thomas and his liking for pornography, and said scumbag, David, merely mentioning the word “impeachment”.

          And this somehow is a smoking gun against Clinton? Where is the fire? what did she do or say? Nada!!!

          1. Otto Greif September 8, 2015

            Sid is her chosen scumbag adviser. The email was titled “H: Brock Memo Here, Have Many More Ideas On This. S”, clearly it was something he and Hillary had been discussing.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.