"An adviser to Hillary Clinton warned the US Secretary of State that David Cameron and Nick Clegg were “snobbish” and “arrogant”, according to newly released private emails…
He adds that the former Lib Dem leader is “from no less a privileged background than Cameron, though seeming less snobbish because he went to Westminster instead of Eton and has a less pronounced upper-class accent”.
David Cameron is “aristocratic, unsure, inexperienced, oblique and largely uncommitted”; Boris Johnson is “Tory clown prince”."
---- tsk tsk, oh dear.
Clinton’s use or misuse of a private server on which to conduct public business seems fair game for election controversy.
Clucking one’s tongue that some aide or other functionary, ( not Clinton), described various British politicians in less than complimentary language would not seem to have any bearing on the election–or anything else besides that aide’s chances of being posted to a consular position in the UK.
I’m not going to get too worked up about how she described British politicians, but I do look forward to further revelations with hope for continuing amusement. She went out of her way to ensure that everyone pays maximum attention to the emails; there’s got to be some juicy stuff in there.
Um, well, yeah, very little of this description is surprising. Cameron both snobbish and in a bit over his comfortable wading depth if not over his head? Yeah, fair enough.
If Clinton had simply followed government rules and used a State Department email server, nobody would be talking about her emails right now. Alternatively, if she had simply told the truth when first asked about the matter last spring, the issue wouldn’t have remained in the news for long. But by choosing to violate the rules, lie to the American people repeatedly, and avoid handing over emails for as long as possible, she’s guaranteed that the whole world is watching and wondering.
Not the whole world, ITR - a good many Dopers have their fingers in their ears and their eyes squeezed shut.
Besides, rules aren’t for Hillary, because she is engaged in Important Work, and should not have to account for what she does. Just take her word for it - nothing on the server got wiped that you or I have any business asking about.
As soon as they violate State Department policy and/or the law in handling classified information in the course of their duties as government officials.
Wow, that sounds bad. I’d love to hear about those classified documents she handled (the ones that were actually classified at the time, not the ones classified subsequently).
This sort of thing came out in some of the Wikileaks documents too. I don’t know why “person in government voices personal opinion of foreign leaders in private communication” is such a shocker to everyone, frankly. I’m also reminded of Obama’s initial view of Cameron as a “lightweight”.
Personally I think most of the UK would agree with the assessment of David Cameron early on in his tenure as “aristocratic, unsure, inexperienced, oblique and largely uncommitted”, and calling Boris Johnson a “Tory clown prince” is positively astute. Clegg as “snobbish” and “arrogant”, though, surprises me given that he’s had nothing to be snobbish or arrogant about. “Feckless” and “ineffectual” is probably closer to the mark.
That’s the point. If she had followed State Department policy and/or the law, there would be no problem about her handling information that was or should be classified. But she didn’t follow that policy - she broke it and lied about it.
I see we’ve already moved from “classified documents” to documents that were “or should be” classified. And nice waffling on “policy and/or the law”, since the consequences for breaking one are significantly different than the consequences for breaking the other.
See? Policy had NOTHING to do with it; they just wanted juicy crap to quote from her emails.
I heard the House was planning to charge her with Treason unless they could read and fap-off to her personal diary, but they didn’t think they could get away with it.
Setting aside the classified information issue, is it not the case that there was no law about using official email at the time Clinton was in office? I recall reading that Rice and possibly Powell also used personal email for government business.
I’m not saying it was smart or good to do so, but I think you are off in calling it illegal. Dumb, yes, but if dumb was a crime, the Republican presidential field would be considerably smaller due to a significant number of convictions.