Not exactly. The Secretary of State is not subject to the same exact rules as a lower-level functionary in the State Department. To some degree, the Secretary makes the rules.
(As they say in theology, you aren’t bound by rules you, yourself, created.)
This is a bit different, however. There ARE rules for handling sensitive and classified data, and none of them involve having your own, personal email server. Dismissing this as the same as ‘office pens to sign personal Christmas cards’ is sticking your head in a hole or plugging your ears and saying ‘nananananananana…I can’t HEAR you’ over and over again.
She was very foolish for doing what she did and exposing herself in this way. And she could still be burned by this thing, as opposed to Benghazi or a theoretical office pen signing scandal. The fact that she probably won’t be isn’t because what she did wasn’t wrong…it’s because she, like so many high ranking elected or appointed officials are entitled and get away with crap that would ruin the careers of lesser beings. I have to say that this is one of the biggest black marks against Hillary, in my own books, and shows a serious lack of judgement on her part. It won’t change my own mind wrt voting for her or voting for Trump, as Trump is such a freaking boob (and I have no doubt that, given the chance his security violations would be biblical in proportion), but it’s appalling that a lot of Democrats and liberals on this board and off are handwaving this whole thing away instead of really looking at it.
There are two separate lines of attack for HRC opponents, that have been discussed throughout this thread:
[ul]
[li]Alleging that the emails must contain information that would damage Clinton. This is what I was posting about, in response to the post suggesting that Benghazi was not proving fruitful for Clinton opponents–I was saying that since they didn’t seem to be finding any damaging material relating to Benghazi, the opponents would be reducing to trying to make hay over office-supply ‘scandals.’ And then there is the second line of attack:[/li]
[li]The issue you are discussing, which differs from the one I’ve just described–namely, the ‘she ran a private server’ issue. In my post to which you replied, I didn’t refer to that issue (making your comment rather off-point).[/li][/ul]
Since you bring it up, though, my view is essentially this: Clinton, like everyone else in the State Department in 2009 (as we have learned), was dealing with an ambiguous set of ‘instructions’ about a technology that was continuing to evolve. (The technology was evolving and so were the vulnerabilities of that technology.) No one at State was communicating over guaranteed-secure email systems at that time; various employees had opinions about what would create perfect security and various employees voiced those opinions to Clinton. She did not act on the opinions or recommendations of all those who told her what she should be doing. They knew what she was doing and did not call the CIA or FBI or NSA or remove her from her job, which seems to indicate, if nothing else, that no one was entirely certain of how email security could be guaranteed.
I think she erred on the side of trying to protect herself against the inevitable humiliations of having her every request for tech help (etc.) made public by FOIA requests. I can understand her wish for a bit of privacy. However, the fact remains that in 2016 we have decided that people doing jobs at that level don’t get much privacy.
I can’t see that anything she did rose to the level of criminality (especially as compared with other ‘security breach’ stories of recent years, particularly the outing of Valerie Plame). But it is important that in her future public life (whether as President or in any other capacity), transparency must be demanded even if it costs her some privacy. It is important that the press continue to demand transparency and follow through on those demands. It is understandable that she would seek privacy, but if she’s to continue in public life, she will just have to grin and bear the oversight that has come to be considered normal in our times.
The Secretary of State is different from other personnel in three important ways:
She had the power to change policy.
She was far more likely to be individually targeted for spying.
She was personally warned that her communications practices were dangerous and she acknowledged it without changing them.
Any defense of her that fails to account for those facts rings pretty hollow.
Isn’t that exactly what she did?
She used a private server–not a secret–and expected State to make that work. That was the policy decision that she made.
As far as being “warned that her communications practices were dangerous” is concerned: I’d be curious to know precisely who was doing the warning. How credible were those particular individuals?
I’m thinking of personal experiences with the IT department in my last corporate job; various individuals at various times told me contradictory things about matters both hardware-related and software-related. Some of them were clearly self-important functionaries. It would have been impossible to follow all the strictures, or even to know which were opinion and which were incontrovertible facts.
You might be surprised to learn that the security advice given to one of the most intense targets of espionage in the world is slightly different from what your crappy IT guy tells you about updating Windows. For more information on this subject, see the OP of this thread.
And targeted not just for spying, and not just by foreign powers, or even primarily, as we all know. Wasn’t protection from the Republicans at least part of her thinking?
While likely true, that isn’t really a legitimate defense for a private server at your house.
And the only reason anyone knows or cares about it is … what, pray tell?
Well there is this FBI investigation I’ve heard tell of. But regardless, surely you agree that “I was hiding my official emails on a private server in my basement because I didn’t want my Republican enemies to get at them” isn’t a particularly good political sell.
You think she is gonna sneak into the FBI offices and delete emails?
OMG!! Yes, she did not need prior approval or any sort of oversight to delete her personal emails. Like a gajillion publications have reported that:
Does she offer a legitimate excuse? Seems to me she has admitted it was a mistake and she should not have done it…
Because the Republicans couldn’t get the Benghazi investigation to stick. On to the next instance of mudslinging…
Begging the question.
No, now that the Benghazigate context is now gone from public discussion. But it’s had all the effect it’s going to have, and they still have to find something else to move on to now.
Except the IG found emails that were work related that she never turned over.
She destroyed government records.
Let’s just step back for a second and take the broad view: Bill Clinton had sex with an intern, which is a hugely unethical action for a host of reasons, and he’s still regarded as one of the more effective and successful presidents of the 20th century.
Hillary Clinton made poor decisions about her email… and so she can’t be trusted to be president? Is that where this is going?
By who? You? Corporate America?
Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was good for 2 specific sets of people… The uber-rich and his own family fortune.
the dismantling of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA were done for the rich. Bill Clinton was paid handsomely for his efforts.
His “legacy” is spoonfed to you by a corporate media who benefitted (and continues to benefit) by the de-regulation of media monopolies. When 6 mega corporations control 90% of the media you consume, you have to really look hard for reality.
If you are lazy and your family has not personally been impacted by his falied presidency, good for you.
NAFTA was a dismantling of the middle class in America. That may be ok with you, but as a “Democratic” president, he stabbed the core base of what the democratic party us supposed to stand for, all for the benefit of the rich.
The rich are telling you how successful his presidency was. Can’t you see that? History is written by the winners.
This is such an oversimplification of the issue, but I am not surprised. People get their information from CNN or MSNBC talking points.
I understand. You are busy. You have a life. You need to check the sports scores, your FB page, and the latest “tweet”.
Do some research. Seek out opinions different than the mainstream. Open your mind. Try taking yourself out of the left/right, Democratic/Republican paradigm. Stop being a fan of your “team”.
She did not make “poor decisions about her e-mail.” She did exactly what she wanted/needed to do to try and keep her activity off the record. There was a reason for that. What do you suppose it was for? Don’t think about it as a partisan democrat (they are attacking her for no reason!). Don’t think about it as a partisan republican (let’s get this witch!)
Think about it logically. Take emotion out of it. Why would she do it? Why when caught would she try to wipe the server? Why when pressed, does she not give a straight answer? What exactly is she hiding? She was SoS, not some summer intern who didn’t understand and made a mistake. She set the server up exactly the way she did because she didn’t want the State Dept. to see what she was doing and have a copy of each and every communication she made as SoS. Why? Do you honestly believe she sent 10’s of thousands of e-mails about yoga?
If you can’t take your personal bias out of it, then flip the scenario. What if your candidate’s opponent did what Clinton did. What if that person, as SoS, had a server that had National Security secrets on a non-secure, hackable server? If “Guciffer” could break in, do you honestly think the Russians/Chinese/whoever don’t have all that information? Do you not think the US would not exploit this server if it was sitting in Putin’s basement?
I won’t do the research for you. You need to want to do it for yourself. People have been forced to “choose sides”, like they are rooting for Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant. What people cannot grasp is politics have become the WWE. It is staged.
Republican… Democrat… There is no significant difference any longer.
Take a look at the Clinton Foundation. Follow the money.
Think critically. You will know you have crossed the rubicon when you hear the giant “POP”.
Hillary Clinton put herself in a position that she could not be permitted to decide what emails were private and which ones were not. She lost that right when she mixed her public responsibilities with her private life. She is a criminal suspect.
The suspect doesn’t get to decide what evidence they are going to turn over to the investigators. The investigators get to decide what is personal and what is not.
Here is the difference, and here is what you are missing. If Hillary had all of her emails on the State Dept. server, there would be copies of all of those emails. So yes, if she deletes an email about a yoga class, she doesn’t need anyone looking over her shoulder. However, if there is any question about that particular email, they would be able to look at it in the State Dept. archives.
People use their work emails for personal things all the time. And the company you work for has legal grounds to read those emails, whether you like it or not, because you are using their equipment. If you don’t want your current employer to see that you are looking for a new job, then you probably wait until you go home, get on your own computer, use your own email account outside of your current employer’s infrastructure and communicate with your recruiter/whatever privately.
Do you HONESTLY believe a suspected criminal would willingly turn over any incriminating evidence? You trust a suspected criminal implicitly?
So your logic would be similar to the following scenario: the police have a murder suspect who shot and killed a woman and stole her credit cards, and want to search his house. They have the proper probable cause and they have a legal search warrant signed by a judge. In your mind, the suspect should be 1) contacted prior to any search and not be subjected to any surprise search where he might hide/destroy something incriminating and 2) trusted to turn over all evidence (on his own) which could show he actually did it.
That is illogical. If you gave a murderer a chance to decide what he is and isn’t going to turn over, I seriously doubt you’d get the murder weapon with his fingerprints along with all the items he stole from his victim (unless, of course, he just wants to go to prison… I guess that possibility would exist, regardless of how minuscule.)
Exactly when did you cut the rope tying it to Benghazi?