No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.

In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.

Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.

It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.

The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.

Bullshit. I probably have the most complicated tax situation (being a citizen of one country, living in another, filing taxes in a third one and having significant US income without SSN) and US taxes were not a problem at all apart from understanding the tax forms. And regular expats won't even have to pay anything unless you earn more than about $200k and live in a tax-haven country like Singapore.

You have no idea of what you talk about. I am citizen of Colombia, Spain, Panama, and the United States. When I am in any other country of the US, I lose all support of US consular services, because I am beholden to the laws of those countries. I cannot commit a crime in Colombia and scream for US help... Please stop giving bad advice on the internet.

Heh. I came here partly to see how long it'd take before someone invoked the bogus restricted definition of "nauseous". Sure didn't take long. ;-)

I've seen a suggestion that we need a list of the common words that trigger this sort of language peevery, for the benefit of those of us who'd like to "misuse" the words at every opportunity. Anyone know of such a collection? Or should I start making one?

We do have a number of lists of the similarly bogus grammatical "errors", generally expressed in such a way as to violate the bogus rules. E.g.: A preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with. Or my favorite: Don't use commas, which aren't needed. But I haven't seen such lists of bogus definitions.

1) Vulkan does away with OpenGL state so it's easy to wrap.
2) It exists, see: piglit ( http://piglit.freedesktop.org/ ).
3..5]) Good idea.

Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what ... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.

But that doesn't mean that her routine back and forth with other US government email correspondents was making those other people think she was deliberately avoiding passing copies along to the State systems as the 2009 regulation required. I suppose people who know her personally know how evasive and dishonest she can be, and they just saw Hillary being Hillary, but with the blessings of Obama.

How about her party finally just acknowledge that she's not to be trusted, and stop presuming she's the next POTUS.

What ARE you talking about?

But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.

Welcome to the exciting world of Trisolarium!

You must have lost your mind. I used Windows Mobile for years. I had to install task managers to kill apps before they killed my battery. I had to install a registry editor and fiddle with settings to get even basic functionality working. IE on WM was a sick joke. I rebooted the phones every other day just to keep working.

  iOS was better in every way. It had a real grown up browser. Shit just worked. The fluid animations were just icing on the cake.

Powerful but flaky is useless.

You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.

No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But instead, we have to trust a person who - the day she was sworn in - immediately set up a system to keep her official communication off the record.

It was illegal before, too. It's just illegal on more than one front, now.

And of course we have congressional subpoenas looking for exactly this sort of communication now because they're now aware it exists, despite earlier investigations concluding that there was no email like this at all, and she and her staff - who knew exactly what they were looking for - didn't say a peep about the existence of tens of thousands of them.

That's just factually incorrect. Take for example Obama's special hot-rodded Blackberry, which he apparently uses for all sorts of direct personal e-communication. And of course there's the issue at hand (Hillary's email) which numbered in the tens of thousands ... but those are just the ones that her staff, after the fact, had laundered and decided under her direction were OK to pass along to the systems at State so there'd be copies. Thousands and thousands of emails is the opposite of "don't use email at all."

The newer law about such officials having to forward ALL such correspondence to their official mailboxes within 20 days is a direct result of it being apparent just how much government officials DO use email, all day, every day. It's why it's so fascinating to see tens of thousands of them being brought back to life from the abyss after the new director of the IRS swore there were no backups of Lois Lerner's comms during her supervision of the politicized treatment of non-profit applications. People in the bureaucratic food chain AND those at the tops of agencies and branches use email constantly, since they can do that asynchronously (compared to elaborately timed phone calls).

But Obama campaigned on changing every aspect of such things, and said that he would guarantee the most transparent administration in history. And here we have a person that he trusts enough to put in the line of succession to his office (Secretary of State) that - on being nominated - didn't just flub her way through a crappy email backup system (a la the career IT people in the WH during Bush, which were not appointees - these are permanent staffers, which you do understand, right?), but rather she immediately went about setting up a system to prevent her communications from being part of the official record.

Then she went around the world doing things like posing with giant plastic "reset" buttons to make everything wonderful with Russia and whatnot, even as she was soliciting millions in donations from foreign governments for use by her personal family foundation. But we'll never know what those emails looked like, and how such things might have been tied to or tangled up with her official duties, because she shielded all of those messages from FOIA requests by never having an official box. And when pressed, she had her own loyalists go through some of the message, and pass along those that SHE considered appropriate for the public archive.

Completely pre-meditated obfuscation of her communications as a senior official. No Sarah-Palin-style cluelessness about using her Yahoo account, no career IT people in the White House having a lame backup system ... no, the completely planned in advance absence of any records except those that Clinton decided, later, should be present. Today we see reports that the IT people in the State Department warned her that her not having an official State mailbox was going to endanger compliance with record keeping laws, but that her completely casual personal mail server was a huge, huge security risk. So we have not only premeditated law breaking to avoid transparency and accountability, but we also have horrible incompetence in understanding the risks of conducting top-level international diplomacy via a mail server set up by some guy with a fictitious name, paid in cash. One really can't make this stuff up.