Since at least 1996, Hillary has had a "no email" policy "to avoid subpoenas"

<<<  Update:  In the spirit of a continuing Obama scandal,  Hillary's announced press conference will not be a press conference,  at all.  Instead,  she will tell the folks her justification for keeping all email records in [her] private hands,  in violation of the law and the stated policy of her boss,  at the time,  Barack Obama.  The kicker to all this "press conference" nonsense is this:  there will be no questions.  Of course not.  She will give us her excuses,  accuse others in the GOP of doing the same thing,  and move on without taking any questions.  If she thinks this performance,  scheduled for later today,  Tuesday the 10th, she is grossly mistaken.  But I believe that she knows this will not be the end of the matter.  All she is trying to do is to put forth talking points that her friends in the media will continue.  You can be certain that this will follow her throughout the election cycle,  which is NOW,  thanks to this scandal.   Understand that the Clinton's have researched their excuse,  but have no answers for any follow-up questions.  They know that the questioning could be a disaster.  In the spirit of Obama's policy of controlling the media,  Hillary is telling the nation,  that this is how she will govern,  as well.  You like Obama's management of his office,  you will love Hillary. 

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” in light of reports that while serving as Secretary of State  Hillary  Clinton was exclusively emailing official State Department business using her private email account, network chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported about Hillary’s longstanding tendency to avoid legal requirements that featured a clip from a 1996 PBS interview.

When PBS host  Jim Lehrer asked “Are you keeping a diary, you keep good notes of what’s happening?” then-first lady Hillary Clinton laughed as she answered, “Heavens no! It gets subpoenaed! I can’t write anything down.”
Follow Pam Key Breitbart.com

Editor's Notes:  What does this admission mean?  For openers,  it means that she understands that anything she puts into print via a diary or an email or whatever,  are publications for which she is responsible.  Secondly,  and clearly,  before being sworn in as Obama's first Secretary of State.  she decided that if she controlled the servers that stored her communications,  she could control the flow of information for which she was responsible.  Third,  throughout  the entire past years of Benghazi investigations,  she and her State Department,  have pretended to have "official" (as in ".gov") emails to be shared,  when,  in fact,  the only emails from the Clinton State Department, were/are in her home,  or out in the barn,  or wherever it is that the server is being hidden. 

Before the end of this week,  we have been promised that Hillary will hold a presser.  We do not know if credentialed journalists will be there,  or if there,  whether they will be allowed to ask questions.  

Expect this development:  immediately after Hillary's presser,  watch the world of journalism,  the folks from the Times,  the Wa/Post and other accepted,  Utopian media centers,  to go insane.  Understand that the Clinton's are not a likeable couple.   And this is a problem for Hillary much more than for Bill.  In addition to this,  there is the need for the media,  biased or not,  to protect their legal abilities to gain access to information.  On every turn,  Obama has blocked this access,  and now,  it turns out that Hillary is doing the very same thing,  but without regard for even the pretense of compliance.  Eight years of Obama followed by 4 years of Hillary or more,  is enough time to render the national media as worthless as the congress,  under Obama.  There has to be a time when all this deception comes to an end . . . . . . .   and that time must be "now." 

I could be wrong,  of course.  What I just wrote is an extension of a political theory I have about the Clinton's and their place within the Democrat Party. Obama has torn that party apart.   My theory includes the notion that neither the Obama's nor the Clinton's are relevant.  They may be likable,  at some level,  but their continued success,  politically, lies wholly in the demand to be charismatic.  Bill has or had that quality,  as does Obama.  But there comes a time when talk cannot carry the day.  

It is my hope that this election cycle will see new faces in both parties,  a renewed emphasis on Nationalism,  and a serious effort at honesty.  Too much to hope for?  Maybe,  but that does not drive hope away.  We have a year before the real characters in the coming election cycle,  surface.