I hate to make this so superficial…
Butt seriously: what sort of statement was Hillary trying to make with this bizarre coat/jacket/tunic/dress/slack outfit? Was it a nod to her transgender/confused coalition? A sort of sartorial stonewalling? Or just another fashion misstep?
I hate to make this all about fashion, butt if you’re going to ask people to “trust me” when you’ve never done anything to warrant it (h/t Carly Fiorina) you need to at least dress the part. Perhaps something dark and serious without bringing to mind the Cold War era or an International Evil Empire.
Especially when you are about to tell us a bunch of whoppers and admit to having deleted thousands of emails related to “wedding plans, yoga, vacations” and other “personal stuff” (like Benghazi). And then tell us that the only reason you used a private email server (that provides you with complete control over what gets deleted) was to simplify your very, very complicated internationalist life.
Note to Hillary: it’s not going to be less complicated if you’re president.
Butt since she may be our president some day I would like to say something nice about the smartest woman in the world: yesterday’s get up was an improvement over a similar look she sported in 2011:
She clearly learned that a patterned, double-breasted coat featuring black piping makes you appear wider. So that’s a good sign: she does do learning. Maybe she can learn how to load two different email accounts to one smart phone. That way we won’t have to hand the reins of the Internet over to the One World Order so they can establish a One World email server.
Oh, I almost forgot! There are apparently some legitimate reasons why you don’t want your Secretary of State “opting for convenience” when it comes to their email – from GeekWire:
You can liken this to the CFO of Chase taking billions of dollars in cash home and storing it in the mattress. It’s so inadequate to meeting the risks that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
- The Secretary of State is a very “high value target” from the standpoint of nation-state threat actors. The President, Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA would also qualify in this top tier. These individuals handle the most important, most sensitive, most dangerous and therefore most interesting information to foreign intelligence.
- Nation-state threat actors represent the top of the food chain in terms of adversaries in information security. Nation-states can bring the most talent and resources to bear in this arena. For all the worry about cybercriminals and terrorists, everyone in information security looks at nation-state threat actors as the most advanced and sophisticated threat to defend against.
- Take #1 and #2 together and you have a situation where the very high value targets are threatened by the most advanced and sophisticated offensive information security capabilities out there. Put another way, the best of the best are gunning for those people to get their information.
If Hillary really didn’t comprehend the meaning and intent of the Department of State cybersecurity protocols perhaps we need to reassess Hill’s designation of “smartest woman in the world” status. And if Big Guy, who I guess actually did know that Hillary was using her private email, didn’t think that was a problem either maybe he’s not “the smartest man ever to be elected to the presidency” either.
All I know for sure is that at this point Gucifer knows more about Hillary’s emails than Congress does.
Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network