I’ve been saying for months on this message board that Clinton exercised poor judgment in setting up a private email server, regardless of whether her emails dealt with classified information.
I’ve also said that it is possible that she broke the law, but that the known facts seem to indicate that her actions would have had to be far more negligent than what has been made public so far to meet the “gross negligence” or “knowingly” mishandled standards established under a couple different sections of title 18.
If you’d like me to cite my posts on these issues, going back several months, I can do that. But the charge that I said “we should trust Clinton on information security issues” can only be something told to you by the Great Gazoo, not me.
One of the questions repeatedly asked in this thread is “why isn’t this getting more attention” and my recent responses were merely to address that issue. The fact that these reasons do not rise to the level needed to dismiss them in your POV, makes them neither “(un)true” or “hyperpartisan”.
I’m sorry that people neither care about this issue or care more about other issues, but that’s the way it is appearing. Even a simple review of some news web pages such as politico or cnn.com shows no traction for the email issue even after Trump’s “blistering” speech on this very topic just 2 days ago.
In post #445, you noted that the proof that her insecure server contained information marked as classified was just an email that she received and did not delete, and that the anodyne nature of her response and the unredacted subject matter suggested that nothing really sensitive was involved.
I thought your implied inference was that the only classified emails she would have similarly retained and replied to would have been ones that were similarly over-classified. And that is an appeal to her judgment about such things.
If, instead, you did not mean to imply that, then I think your rebuttal comes across as quite weak. If you don’t think Hillary had good judgment about what information needed to be secure and which didn’t, then it is pretty damning that she did in fact receive and store messages that other people marked classified. I ascribed to you the stronger and more well-reasoned, albeit implied, position.
So your cite that it has no traction is that it’s not currently front page of CNN? You are seriously saying this didn’t get much attention? And you handwave away that large chunks of the population think her behaviour was unethical or illegal? Don’t be sorry for me. I’m fine.
In 431, sleestak linked to a version of that email as concrete proof that Clinton lied when she said that she never emailed anything that was marked classified. In 433, I pointed out that the classified marking that sleestak pointed to was, in fact, marked two years after the email was sent, so that this smoking gun evidence was being thoroughly misread.
In 441, EvilEconomist linked to a different version of the email without that post-dated marking, noting that there was information not present in sleestak’s link that was marked Confidential. In 445, I pointed out that Clinton didn’t write the part with the classified bits, that someone else typed it up and sent it to her and she responded.
In 445, to put my response in slightly different terms (but the same spirit as I intended my post), if the smoking gun evidence that Clinton lied about never sending an email that was marked with classified information is that she replied to someone who did break the rules, then this isn’t really compelling evidence that Clinton was lying in her statement. In this case, it’s pretty clear that the email’s original author broke the rules, and to assign Clinton blame for replying to the email, as though this is the best evidence of her wrongdoing, is… meh.
There may be other examples where Clinton did something really bad. But between sleestak totally not understanding what he was linking to, and EvilEconomist commendably adding better information to the mix… this is supposed to be the damning evidence against Clinton? Like, that’s it?
In my mind, the poor judgment of setting up a private email server for official government use is self evident, and the two links to that email are pretty weak sauce for the charge of mishandling classified information.
And the spin is just so adorable. See, now, rather than claiming she turned over all work-related emails, she’s turned over all work related emails “still in her possession”. Boy, she really thinks you’re stupid. Honest mistake, that’s all. Except that’s why the private account was problematic, among other reasons: records retention. She can’t claim “honest mistake” on this one. As if anyone actually believed that.
So now they’re making up new categories of “secured” and “work-related” which aren’t actually secured or work-related, and trying to pin that to the cork-board.
Not impressed.
Come back when you have some actual wrong-doing. Until now, you only have the Secretary of State going against the rules that the Secretary of State decides.
You have this weird fantasy that this has some kind of meaning in the real world, and it just plain doesn’t. It’s Swift-Boating all over again. Keep repeating lies (not adaher, but the right-wing talk-show hosts) until it starts to attain some kind of cultural reality.
What’s sad is that some people (adaher) are falling for this trash.
She didn’t turn over all her work emails. This is once again her having to change her spin as new facts came out. When we started, she had supposedly turned over all work emails and had not had any classified information pass through her server.
She’s had to walk back an awful lot since this started. Now your standard might be actual, proven wrongdoing. That’s fine. Most voters expect better from their Presidential candidates. Thank your lucky stars her competition is Donald Trump and third parties. She might still blow it anyway.
This word “evidence”, I don’t think it means what you think it means. The State Department and State Dept IG said she didn’t turn over all her work emails. Her own spokesman admits as much by again moving the goalposts.
<libertarian>THIS is the year for the Libertarian Party!..Okay, THIS is the year for the Libertarian Party!..all right, then THIS year will be the year for the LP!..etc.</libertarian>
You are correct I linked to the incorrect version of the document (too many windows open, linked to the wrong one). However, you are wrong yet again on what Clinton claimed.
Clinton claimed that she never sent or received classified emails.
Now we also know that the State Department had to disable security software for weeks because of Clintons email server. That is even worse. Her little, half-assed email server caused the entire State Department to decrease their network security and that is fucking major.