Hey, if you were going to start a campaign to run for President of the US, you wouldn't want the current Administration to be able to read your emails, either.

Folk forget (if ever they knew) that "government server" means admin rights belong to someone else, not you.

If Hillary Clinton is the first person you think of when trying to decide who fits the bill of "U.S. Royal," you're hopelessly and irredeemably lost.

Peckish this morning, Patrick?

"Hillary Clinton is one of them."

"the staff was instructed "never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again." '

If Dems had any any self-respect this alone would have eliminated their support for HRC. It completely describes the Clinton's power. All hail Hillary!

They had to shut her server down to stop hacking! No problems here so just shut up and move on.

Oh, and Powell! The horrors of using procedures from 10? years ago to send several dozen emails from a private account, turning in emails on time, using actual government IT recommendations, and talking to State when requested.

Off with his head! Why Hillary only had her own private server w/her personally selected IT guy, thousands and thousands of email, did not turn them in, deleted thousands when she had to turn them in (they were n/d/ot hers but our gov'ts but ..., did/did not/did according to some/I'm confused do any secret/top secret/ultra top secret/ yoga workouts, ...

Whew! I'm glad she can use a Blackberry 'cause she can't type or drive. ARE you ready for Hillary! She is a woman so we must elect her! (Your mama says so.)

The Goddess writes: Peckish this morning, Patrick?

No, I had a nice breakfast with bacon and a cheese omelet. I'm a terrible cook, but even I can't ruin bacon.

I just think if there's royalty in America, I think pampered, spoiled, entitled, arrogant and rich. Leona Helmsley comes to mind. Yes, I'm aware she went to prison. But even Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had their heads cut off (for no reason) but it shows that even royalty is not immune. Trump, Ted Turner, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, people like that.

Hillary strikes me as more scatterbrained than arrogant, although she is arrogant, yes. She doesn't rise to quite that level of loathsomeness. Hillary is more down to earth, or at least better able to pull off the facade of being so. I guess I would see her as more "sub-royalty," like the Bushes (except Barbara; she's total royalty).

Bob in Texas: If Dems had any any self-respect this alone would have eliminated their support for HRC.

Meanwhile, the Republicans support Donald Trump.

Patrick, this email thing was not scatterbrained. Contracting to have her own email server set up, and having someone funneling TS/SCI classified data from SIPRNet into it, was not done by accident. It had to be planned; there is no way it could not have been. And none of the technical people involved would have risked their careers and their freedom except under her specific direction, with an implied or expressed promise of being shielded from prosecution.

When you get a clearance, you sign a non-disclosure agreement that is binding for life. And that agreement makes it absolutely clear that the standard of enforcement is strict liability -- if you mishandle classified information, you are legally responsible regardless of intent. Hillary signed one of those agreements.

(Actually, since I wrote that, now I'm wondering... in Bill Clinton's first term, there were a bunch of White House and Cabinet staffers who got access to classified information without going through the official process to get a clearance. This happened under Bill Clinton's specific orders, because there is no other way it could have happened. Was Hillary one of them? Does she in fact have a valid clearance?)

"Meanwhile, the Republicans support Donald Trump."

Off topic but I know that's about the best you can make of this situation so that's okay. As noted elsewhere even her slogan is all about her. Besides, that our problem not yours.

(Biden, Warren, Sanders, Reid, ... If it weren't for selective memory there be no one left.)

I've wanted royals in America for a long time — since the Reagan era. Frankly, I don't care if they're the Reagans, Bushes, Clintons or Obamas. It would be lovely to have a titular figurehead vacuuming up tourist dollars while a president-functionary goes about the business of governing.

Kevin, if Trump wins you met get that, assuming people abroad are driven by schadenfreude to see the continuing collapse of our society. I've read that Trump plans to delegate the hard work.

I agree Hillary's hardly better, but she's not such a public clown.

Hillary strikes me as more scatterbrained than arrogant, although she is arrogant, yes. She doesn't rise to quite that level of loathsomeness. Hillary is more down to earth, or at least better able to pull off the facade of being so. I guess I would see her as more "sub-royalty," like the Bushes (except Barbara; she's total royalty). ~ Patrick at June 1, 2016 7:28 AM

Hillary, down to earth? What are you smoking?

According to numerous reports, she is a nightmare to work for. She reportedly won't let anyone look her in the eye and insists when walking down the hall that no one greet her. She is noted for making her Secret Service detail carry her luggage and do menial tasks. Working her detail is described by Secret Service insiders as a punishment.

She berated a White House electrician for changing a bulb while she was in the residence instead of waiting until she had left, per her standing orders. She fired the entire White House Travel Office to put her own people in place. She reportedly fired a technical support person for helping Barbara Bush when the former First Lady called him for help.

She took bribes as Secretary of State - through the Clinton Foundation. Foreign companies with business before the State Department donated large sums to the Foundation or paid Bill a large sum to speak and quickly found their petitions approved.

A company on whose board her brother, Hugh Rodham, sat received a very rare gold mining permit from Haiti right after the State Department sent the county millions in foreign aid.

She started as First Lady worth a few hundred thousand and now she's worth hundreds of millions. Unless you think she got that all through legitimate investments in cattle futures, she's corrupt.

The non-partisan watchdog group, Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), named Hillary the most corrupt politician in 2015. FACT cited "overwhelming evidence" that she abused her position as Secretary of State.

We should be worried that she's got a good shot at being elected president. That our alternative to her is a besuited circus clown with the mental outlook of a hyperactive eighth grader is frightening. That the media have anointed her as the default is doubly frightening.

I've read that Trump plans to delegate the hard work.

We had a control freak in the White House before. Jimmah Cartah. How'd that work out?

You have to farm out the actual heavy lifting to your subordinates, and trust them to do the work in a timely and effective manner. Otherwise, you will fail miserably. It is just too much for one plate.

That our alternative to her is a besuited circus clown with the mental outlook of a hyperactive eighth grader is frightening.

Ah, yes. It's the conundrum of the devil you know or the devil you fear.

I look at this way: how hard would the clown have to work to be as bad as Hillary? in my calculation, he'd have to work pretty hard to be that bad.

Bill sold more than a bit of our tech to China. Will Hillary sell the rest?

I seem to have been widely misunderstood today. That's what I get for posting stuff on Amy's blog after a not-so-good night.

Cousin Dave: Patrick, this email thing was not scatterbrained.

Didn't mean to imply that it was. I was thinking more along the lines that Hillary knew what the requirements were and chose to say, "Fiddle-dee-dee!" at them.

She's not presidential, is she? With such a cavalier attitude toward security measures intended to protect us all.

I know a lot about security clearances. In the army, I held a Top Secret with SCI nomination. Highest in the country, although I never had a use for it. It was more of a "just in case."

Conan: Hillary, down to earth? What are you smoking?

Sigh. I will try to be nice about this, but what I'd really like to do is link you to a tutorial about the comparative and the superlative, and forbid you from posting here again until you've read and mastered it.

But let's try the nice approach.

I said, "more down to earth." I was comparing her favorably to what I consider the nation's royals, such as the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Leona Helmsley, Trump, etc.

I don't take very much at all to be "more down to earth" than those people; even Hillary could pull it off. And you'll notice, I also included the addendum,"or at least better able to pull off the facade of being so."

You even quoted it.

So, I even left myself open to the possibility that she might not be "more down to earth" than those people, and suggested she could pull off a passable facade of being more down to earth than those people.

Again, that doesn't sound hard to me. The families/individuals I listed eat arrogance for breakfast every morning. (Or at least they did when they were alive, in the cases of those who have since passed on.)

I think I'm going to bed early. I'm still tired and I did a lot today.

I said, "more down to earth." I was comparing her favorably to what I consider the nation's royals, such as the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Leona Helmsley, Trump, etc.

Patrick, let me reply to you without taking exception to your smarmy tone, as I've come to expect that from you.

Down to earth means "with no illusions or pretensions; practical and realistic."

Any mention of more "down to earth" comparing Hillary to anyone gets the same reaction. Huh? What are you smoking? Pretension is her default setting.

By the way, if you meet some of "those people" you will find them way more down to earth than you think Hillary is or is pretending to be (which pretense, by the way, rules out down to earth).

Ronald Kessler interviewed Secret service and White House staff about presidents from Kennedy to Clinton for Inside the White House and found that the old money presidents (Bushes) were way more friendly to the staff than the new money presidents (Kennedys, Clintons, and Carters).

John F. Kennedy behaved terribly toward Jackie, often leaving her to handle the children and luggage by herself when boarding Air Force One. Publicly he was a family man, privately he was a jerk.

Lyndon Johnson was a bully who often held staff meetings while he sat on the toilet or stood there in the nude. He would often show his penis to staff members (no pun intended) and brag about its size (reportedly, it was larger than average). Johnson was also a serial philanderer who had the Secret Service install a buzzer to warn him when his wife was on her way so he wouldn't get caught with his flavor of the day ... again.

Richard Nixon was well-liked by the staff and Secret Service. His daughter, Julie, on the other hand was a Secret Service nightmare, often ditching her detail to rendezvous with her boyfriend, David Eisenhower. Nixon was lonely and had almost no relationship with his family. His wife was also lonely and an alcoholic.

Gerald Ford was liked by the staff and treated them with respect.

Jimmy Carter was a micro-managing martinet who distrusted the staff to handle even routine matters. He took over managing minutiae like coordinating the White House tennis court schedule from the Oval Office. His reputation as an everyman was largely a PR fable.

Ronald Reagan was a nice guy who often thanked the White House staff or the Air Force One crew for their efforts and had cordial relations with the staff. His wife was overprotective of him and was often brusque with the staff.

The George HW Bush family stuck Kessler's sources as the only one of the modern presidential families to be accustomed to having a staff of servants, moving easily in the trappings of power and privilege. An anecdote was told in which two White House staffers were descending to the WH tennis court for their reserved time and found a Bush grandchild playing on the court overseen by Barbara Bush. Backing up to leave, they were told by Mrs. Bush to come on down as she bundled up the grandchild and left them to their game. This anecdote was offered in contrast to other presidential families to took liberties with staff members' free time. George HW Bush once gave a warm hat to one of his Secret Service detail while at the family compound in Maine.

Hillary Clinton was a nightmare. Her husband and daughter were well-liked, but she was almost universally detested. Bill Clinton was habitually late, so much so that his tardiness was dubbed "Clinton Standard Time."

Al Gore was also disliked. He was contemptuous of the Secret Service agents, warning his son to do well in school or he would end up like them.

George W. and Laura Bush were well-liked by the staff for their consideration. The Bushes used to schedule their Christmas excursions to Crawford, Texas for the day after Christmas and spent Christmas at Camp David. This was so the staffers who had to accompany them to Crawford could spend Christmas with their families in Washington and leave the day after. With minimal staffing required at Camp David, most of the staff got the day off.

A later Kessler book included he Obamas. According to the later book, Barack and Michelle are very considerate of their Secret Service details and have even invited agents to have dinner with them. Michelle insists the agents in her detail call her by her first name.

I saw an interview with Trump a few years ago about his children and he admitted he was a lousy husband. He maintained he was a good father and his children have turned out well, so maybe he is. His ex-wife, Ivana, and Donald Jr. have both said that the kids could not play one against the other even after the divorce, as Donald always backed Ivana's play.

Based on what I've heard about her from reliable sources, I can't imagine Hillary being frank with a reporter on a personal question supportive of an ex. So your claim of "more down to earth" strikes me as wistful thinking at best, naiveté at worst.

By the way, I met Ted Turner briefly as a student and Captain Outrageous seemed pretty down to earth, spending time mixing with the plebes. Jane, on the other hand, was not and made no secret of the fact that she was bored and ready to leave.

Actually, I rather admire the Queen; she does keep that stiff upper lip and all that is typically British. Not acting like a "hey everybody look at me" kind of celebrity. She also seems to have a sense of duty - even if it isn't a hard, back-breaking, boots in the mud, kind of duty.

Our American (self-appointed) "royalty" seldom seem to have that sense of duty - and telling us to pay more taxes to help others out so we can have a "just and generous" society doesn't count.

Just curious, but how are the Kennedys "new money"? Wasn't Joe a bootlegger from way back? JFK's dad was already rich before JFK made it to the White House, so I thought. Which is more than can be said for the Clintons or the Carters.

But the point is moot, since I agree with your source in that I included the Kennedys among the nation's royals. Old Joe insisted on being called "the Ambassador" even though he no longer had the right to that title, and he treated his wife like shit.

Even JFK himself had contempt for her. "My mother is a nothing," he supposedly said.

And please note who else I put on the list. You don't get any more regal than Leona Helmsley.

And please note who else I put on the list. You don't get any more regal than Leona Helmsley. ~ Patrick at June 1, 2016 5:32 PM

Until she was busted for tax evasion, I'd never heard of her.

Just curious, but how are the Kennedys "new money"? ~ Patrick at June 1, 2016 5:32 PM

Kennedy family money was made by Joe Kennedy. It has only been around for about two generations. Old money was made several generations before that. Old money in the US includes the Cabots, Lowells, Forbses, DuPonts, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and Astors. New money in the US includes the Kennedys and the Waltons. Parvenus include the dot-com and social media billionaires.

There is no clear definition of "old money" but a good frame of reference is how long the family descendants have held onto their immense wealth. It's really a matter of social class than of actual economics.

And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.

Probably the oldest money in the Americas was the Gardiner family. See Lion Gardiner and Gardiner's Island.
I think they broke up maybe twenty years ago, but they started about 1636.
Other families starting out then in the US south or Latin America, if they didn't just lose it, may have been run over by revolutions or civil war.
I had a prof in the social sciences say that the oldest money in the US was "up the Hudson" and those folks kept a very low profile. They're never in the papers and any philanthropy--presuming there is any--is done by several layers of cutouts.

Richard, I never thought about it, but I think you're right in that a lot of them disappeared as the result of the Civil War. Either they left the country (some went to Mexico or South America), or they were stripped of their assets and so were no longer influential. There was a huge change in the Southern economy due to the combination of war and industrialization. I know people who have antebellum ancestry, but I wouldn't say that any of them are "name" families. The oldest ones I can think of go back to the late 19th century, a la the DeBardelenbens of Birmingham (they got rich with the rise of the steel industry).