RUTHFULLY YOURS

Hillary Clinton just can’t catch a break.

The Democrat nominee’s new long march to the White House gets longer by the day. The scandal over her misuse of state secrets via a lawless, do-it-yourself private server seemed to be behind her last month — thanks to the FBI’s and Justice Department’s whitewashing of what looked, to the naked eye, like high crimes.

But Clinton’s initial clean getaway has bogged down into a standoff.

For starters, Clinton’s go-to excuse — “Secretary Powell has admitted he did the same thing,” as she told CNN last March — has crashed and burned. She also has claimed that she installed her private server because her predecessor made her do it.

“Her people have been trying to pin it on me,” Colin Powell told People magazine last Saturday. “The truth is, she was using [the private e-mail server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did.”

Despite the assertions of Clinton and her allies, Powell never had a private server. He did have a private AOL account, for sending personal messages to friends and loved ones and also to transmit unclassified e-mails to State Department colleagues.

Alas, a grand total of two classified e-mails wound up on Powell’s AOL account, according to the State Department’s inspector general. This compares to zero, each, for secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

RELATED: If Hillary Is Corrupt, Congress Should Impeach Her

As for Clinton, her server held 2,113 classified e-mails — literally more than 1,000 times as many as Powell’s AOL account, thus rendering hilarious her assertion that, “We both did the same thing.”

Meanwhile, the absolution of FBI chief James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not spare Clinton from the federal government’s pesky judicial branch nor the even peskier watchdogs at the conservative law firm Judicial Watch.

The State Department last week agreed to expedite its delivery of all e-mails to and from Clinton that the FBI discovered in its probe of her private, unsecured server. This decision flows directly from Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit before U.S. District Court judge James E. Boasberg, an Obama appointee.

The request for these e-mails spans February 2, 2009 to January 31, 2013, i.e., all but the first twelve days of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

VIDEO: The Clintons Are Corruption Defined

Judicial Watch hopes to view what Clinton laughed off as “a few more” new messages on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! last night, namely 14,900 previously unrevealed documents that Clinton sent or received via e-mail. The existence of these records became public yesterday.

Judge Boasberg ordered the State Department to develop a plan to expedite delivery of these materials and present it to him on September 22 — just four days before the first presidential debate between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

“The American people will now see more of the emails Hillary Clinton tried to hide from them,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated. “Simply put, our lawsuits have unraveled Hillary Clinton’s email cover-up.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz is demanding answers from the FBI regarding the possibility that unauthorized people such as Hillary Clinton’s lawyers and IT staffers mishandled classified emails. This comes a week after Chairman Chaffetz and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia outlining the case for perjury against Hillary Clinton, citing several examples where her sworn testimony before Congress was incompatible with evidence collected by the FBI in their investigation into her private email server.

On Monday, the Utah Republican sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking if the possibility of “spillage” had been “fully investigated and remediated.”

“Just as classified information may not be provided to anyone without an appropriate clearance, classified information must also not be stored on a computer system that is not authorized to store it,” Chaffetz wrote. “The transfer of classified information from a computer system authorized to store it to one that is not is called spillage.”

According to the Hill, information about the storage of Clinton’s classified emails at her lawyers’ offices, was not included in the documents the FBI gave to Congress last week.

Documents requested in the letter:

Information as to whether the FBI investigated the possibility that Secretary Clinton’s classified emails were improperly stored or accessed by her personal representatives or by individuals at Williams & Connolly LLP, including on any unauthorized electronic devices or media, such as desktops or servers, and the Bureau’s conclusion if it did investigate that;

A description of the manner in which Clinton’s personal representatives and individuals at Williams & Connolly stored any electronic devices and media and physical documents containing Secretary Clinton’s classified emails when they were not in use, and a description of the physical location in which those devices, media, and documents were accessed when they were in use, including the Bureau’s assessment of whether those met applicable security requirements;

What steps were taken to remediate any possible spillage of classified information stored on electronic media or in any of the other various locations in which Secretary Clinton’s emails were stored and accessed;

Whether the FBI informed Secretary Clinton of the classified findings in its investigation and, if so, when;

Whether the FBI is conducting any other related investigations, or has attempted to do so, and the current status of each such investigation;

Whether the FBI referred any of its findings to any other agency for review for potential security violations or misconduct or disciplinary proceedings;

An unclassified copy of the documents provided to the Committee on August 16, 2016, with all classified information redacted.

On Friday, while residents of Baton Rouge were recovering from a historic flood that damaged some 40,000 homes, Obama was on Martha’s Vineyard watching fireworks, following 10 rounds of golf in 16 days. Donald Trump, by contrast, was on the ground in the flood zone, unloading relief materials, touring the devastation and focusing much-needed attention on a disaster that has been largely ignored by the media.

Why wasn’t Obama there? According to a White House statement, “The President is mindful of the impact that his travel has on first responders and wants to ensure that his presence does not interfere with ongoing recovery efforts.”

Funny, that’s precisely why President George W. Bush didn’t come to New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina. And Democrats — including Barack Obama — hammered Bush for it. Unlike Obama, Bush actually canceled his vacation and got on a plane to return to Washington. But he decided not to land in Louisiana so as not to draw resources away from the ongoing rescue efforts and flew Air Force One low over the flood zone so that he could see the devastation firsthand.

Democrats howled. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Bush was “oblivious, in denial, dangerous.” Obama later called Bush “a president who only saw the people [of Louisiana] from the window of an airplane, instead of down here on the ground trying to provide comfort.”

Trump to Louisiana: ‘We’re with you’

If Donald Trump should win the presidency, I hope he will be able to prevail upon Mike Rowe to be his secretary of education and lead a desperately needed reform and restructuring of American education. For Rowe understands the serious harm being inflicted upon Americans by the worship of college as the essential first step into the workforce, and the utter disdain and lack of support for vocation skill training.

But Rowe’s vision is far greater. He also spots political bias, and on his Facebook page. he has written a delicious response to journalists who harp on Donald Trump’s base being “poorly educated.” It is the read of the day. Here is a fair use excerpt, but read the whole thing:

Pardon Me, But Your Slip Is Showing…

Albert Samos writes…The media has recently been stating that Donald Trump’s key supporters didn’t graduate from college. They constantly refer to these people as “uneducated white men.” As an electrical contractor who happens to be a white guy with six employees but no college, I find this vaguely offensive and somewhat confusing. What do you think of the media characterizing people this way?

Hi Albert

If the media is referring to Trump supporters who happen to be male caucasians suffering from a lack of knowledge brought about by an absence of formal or practical instruction, than I guess “uneducated white men” is a fair description. However, if the Trump supporters in question are being dubbed “uneducated,” simply because they didn’t earn a four-year degree, I’d say the media’s slip is showing.

Let’s assume that Donald Trump is indeed popular among white men who didn’t graduate from college. The first question is, so what? Is this information newsworthy? Obviously, thousands of journalists think it is. To your point, the words “uneducated white men” now appear in hundreds of articles about Trump. But if this is truly important information, where were these reporters four years ago? In the last election, an even greater majority of African-American males who voted for President Obama had no college on their resume. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any headlines or articles that delved into Obama’s popularity among “uneducated black men.”

If the media didn’t care about the lack of college among black men supporting Obama, why do they care so much about the lack of college among white men supporting Trump? Moreover, when exactly did a lack of college become synonymous with a lack of education?

There are many ways to become educated that don’t involve the purchase of a diploma. Why would the media ignore thousands of apprenticeship programs, on-the-job-training opportunities, and all the other alternative educational options that have led so many people into so many successful careers? The answer is obvious – many in the press are looking for ways to impact the election. If a biased reporter can get away with labeling Trump supporters who didn’t graduate from college as “uneducated,” he can simultaneously imply that any ballot cast for Trump is the hallmark of an “uneducated” voter.

If you’re only “vaguely offended” by this Albert, maybe it’s because you’ve seen it all before. Never mind the fact that you run a successful business. Never mind your years of training, your skill, your knowledge, your diligence, your commonsense, and every other quality that allowed you to succeed. In this political climate, none of that matters. These days, you’re just another white guy who never made it to college, voting for the “wrong candidate.”

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/23/trumps-sharia-test-proposal-on-the-glazov-gang/

Nonie discusses Trump’s Sharia Test Proposal, explaining why the ideological vetting of Muslim newcomers is long overdue.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Nonie discuss Facebook Punishes Me For Violating Sharia, sharing how she was banned for committing a thought crime about Islam: