So, would you agree that Clinton causing the State department to lower security standard goes a bit beyond dumb? That causing an entire government agency to weaken security is a serious problem? If not, is there a point at which her email practices might be a serious problem?
Also, I note that you ignored the fact that Clinton claimed she never received classified emails even though she did.
Slee
Dumb, serious problem… are there any other adjectives you’d like to use that I will also agree with? Disabling government cyber defenses to accommodate a private server doing official business is bad, not good, irresponsible, and should not be done.
Happy?
These are the sort of comments I expect when one has finished arguing for their position and embraced arguing against someone else. Are you mad at me?
First of all, thank you for clarifying her statement. For whatever reason, I either recalled it (or perhaps read it) as saying that she did not send emails with marked classified information. But since you accurately point out that she said that she didn’t receive marked classified information, her statement is not correct.
However, I disagree that this counts as a lie. Being factually wrong and intending to deceive are not the same. If there is a small number of emails that she received that contain portion-marked confidential information, I would tend to think that she is probably mistaken, as opposed to fabricating, her claim that she didn’t receive classified information.
If she received substantial numbers of these types of emails among the 50,000 emails being scrutinized, then I’d be more inclined to conclude that her statement was deceptive. Also, if she sent emails with portion-marked confidential information, I would think that would be a bigger deal than receiving emails.
I eagerly await your reply to tell me how unreasonable I am.
I notice a pattern here. When the accused, a Clinton, cannot be shown to have actually broken any law, the desperation grows to the point of trying to find an error in their testimony, with a goal of prosecuting them on that.
Didn’t work the last time, and won’t work this time.
You must be furious with Colin Powell then.
Jeb Bush, who received the bulk of the early media coverage (and also bought more coverage than anyone else) is wondering why he wasn’t possible.
Senior people have some responsibility to recognize sensitive information themselves. There isn’t some authority above all of them saying what it is or isn’t, and it’s particularly silly to claim that the only thing which matters is if they’d applied a stamp yet. By that standard it would be fine for the President and DCI to converse about US humint assets high up in the Iranian govt on regular cell phones. Nobody would have stamped that conversation classified as or before it occurred, would they?
The ironic thing about the ‘not classified yet’ argument is that it implicitly assumes the argument of Hillary detractors that she was a just a politician in search of the WH punching her ticket with a tour as Secy of State, rather than actually the chief diplomat. The actually responsible senior people have to control how they communicate and in what form based on their knowledge of what is highly sensitive. They can’t anticipate every subsequent classification, but it would be nonsensical to have security classification if only subsequent review mattered and the original creators or receivers of material had no responsibility to recognize it as such and treat it accordingly.
I deduce from the actions and body language of the Obama admin that they are confident they can avoid indicting her, or any other revelation, leak, resignation, etc. much more deeply damaging to her campaign that what’s know now. And that’s the bottom line politically. But a lawyer ‘can make an argument’ it’s a lot less bad than stuff lots career people have been sacked or indicted for (without proven intent to expose classified material), is the about strongest plausible defense of her actions.
So, how much authority does SecState have when it comes to classification? If someone passes around a piece of info on the presumption that it is not particularly sensitive, can she step in and say “Whoa! That’s some touchy shit there, classified!”. I would think so, she is already invested with a considerable degree of authority.
And follow up, if she says something does not require secrecy, but somebody else says it does…is it “classified”?
No they don’t.
Yes there is.
Of course it’s a problem. But it happens every day. Just today, I saw an entire government agency weaken it’s security just so a user doesn’t have to click an “okay” box when opening a PDF. Have you ever worked in government?
In her case, that would be the President of the United States. Has he time to read all those documents? Busy fellow, you know, plus has to stop and pray five times a day.
Lack of transparency in a politician is proof of wrongdoing to the majority of the electorate. This isn’t a trial. It’s an election. We expect more than merely technical compliance with the law.
Keep that in mind when you talk about indictment. There has been no demonstration of wrong-doing. Only “Swift-boating.”
I don’t know, nor do I care, if there is an indictment. An indictment is just a technical legal matter. If she’s indicted, you should continue to support her. It changes nothing about what she did, and you think that what she did is just fine. And I think it’s near disqualifying. So an indictment changes nothing for either of us.
This “we” of which you speak…
Clinton’s approval is 42-55. I think it’s pretty safe to say that voters have had some issues with her conduct.
You keep harping on this and it’s utter bullshit. We want to win - if, before the convention, or candidate now looks like a loser because of an indictment , then it’s entirely reasonable and consistent to want to change candidates.
Oh, I know they just want to win. And sure, at the convention they can change the candidate, and I think they should.
But a criminal charge doesn’t change what she did, and don’t think we won’t take advantage of the Democratic Party’s powers that be almost unanimous unconcern with her actions should she get indicted after the convention. If I steal a pack of gum from a store, I stole it whether or not they decide to charge me. I’m a petty thief either way.
This is different than what you said – you said that it’s somehow inconsistent or dishonest to want to drop her if she’s indicted, and that’s total bullshit.
Of course an indictment would be a huge political blow, and of course her enemies would try to take advantage of it. In light of this, it’s consistent, honest, and reasonable both to think that she’s a better option than Trump and nonetheless decide that if she is indicted she won’t be the best option to challenge Trump.
It’s dishonest in that it doesn’t change anything about the morality of what she did. If you don’t have a problem with it now, you should stand by her if she’s indicted.
She’s not the best option now, and unlike my convention, you don’t need a rule change to stop her. All the superdelegates have to do is abstain for a ballot or two and the convention is thrown open.
You’ve said this many times but it’s not reality. What has been made public doesn’t really merit an indictment so if she’s indicted something much more serious will have to be revealed.