It’s mostly partisan bullshit. Not purely, but mostly.
To a large degree how we got here was partisan bullshit. Criticism of Hillary’s email system holds together without any partisanship required. I know, because I’m not partisan.
I figure that given Julian Assange and Edward Snowden’s existence in this world, Hillary’s emails were probably just as safe wherever they were as they would have been anywhere else in the government. BFD, she could have been hacked. You know what else could have been hacked, the fucking NSA. And, just to be clear, Assange started releasing information back during the Bush administration - this isn’t a recent problem.
This has all been baked into her numbers already. People who think she is dishonest and unethical already did, this confirms it for them. People who think she’s human, point to this as part of her being human. Very few people think she farts rainbows, those people probably think the FBI is lying. No one’s opinions of Hillary are going to change unless she actually is caught screwing Vince Foster’s dead body with Monica Lewinsky holding the flashlight.
What a coincidence. Her opponent could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot someone without losing supporters.
Though similar email systems were used by Bush and Rove and by Rice and by Powell.
Not that “everyone does it” is an excuse, but it does beg the question “why is this a big deal this time.”
Is the person he is shooting black/Hispanic or Muslim? Yeah, he probably could.
I guess my take on this (as if the Internet actually needs one more take on this issue) is that Hillary bent some rules, partly out of exasperation with government red tape and partly in an effort to sidestep FOI laws. This is probably absolutely typical behavior from most high-ranking officials. But, as far as I can tell, there was no intent to compromise government security and no intent to profit from doing this. So, I agree – not great judgement, but not a disqualifying event.
What irritates me most about this, however, is the number of suddenly strictly law-abiding citizens we suddenly have on the internet. People who routinely speed and lie about it (“Why no, officer, I have no idea how fast I was going.”), smoke weed, and torrent copyrighted works are suddenly the most interested people in the world in seeing justice done to rule breakers. Granted, the Sec. of State can do a lot more damage by playing fast and loose with the rules, but no one has successfully demonstrated that any was done here.
As for the rules being different for high-ranking officials, I sure say it is. I don’t remember getting dragged in front of Congressional committees for things that happen in my workplace. And Congress is continuing this behavior today on the same politically motivated witch hunt.
Um, did I stray from the OP? Not switching my vote. Maybe you guessed that.
Rice and Powell did not remotely have similar email systems. Read up a bit.
This is a hijack. But I have. And I’ve done IT security and IT infrastructure for 30 years. And, more than 30 years ago, I worked in a security clearance job for a defense contractor.
Right, they were still using dial-up modems.
Oh, we have an expert on hand. Please tell me a quick example of the similarity between Condalizza’s and Hillary’s systems.
Holy shit. Does anybody actually read the reports about these things?
You are wrong. The I.G. report clearly states that, beginning in 2005, day to day operations were to be conducted on government servers. So yes, Clinton’s setup was in conflict with government guidelines at the time.
and
From here.
You are absolutely wrong. At least try to understand what she did and what the policies were. That goes for you to, Sherrerd.
Slee
Only laws have the force of law. Guidelines, memoranda, Robert’s Rules of Order, recipes… do not carry the force of law, you cannot be indicted for not following a guideline. This point was made several times in the face of gasps of astonishment at the sudden disappearance of a cherished pony.
'Course, you’re not absolutely wrong, just mostly wrong.
Read what people write, not what you think they wrote.
Fear Itself said there were no guidelines against what Clinton did. There were. The policy was clear and had Clinton asked about it, she would have been told that a personal server was against the policy.
I did not post about law but about the policy.
Slee
Hillary could personally gun down an entire kindergarten, and I’d still vote for her over Trump.
You must not have read the excerpts that you yourself posted: nowhere do those excerpts contain any language of any kind that states (or even implies) that use of a personal server is “against the policy.” The guidelines don’t say that use of a personal server is “against the policy” in those words or in any words that mean “against the policy.”
It says that the
and that the AIS should be used
You appear to be missing the actual meaning of those phrases: they do not say that no other system may be used, as you claim.
Anyone who has been actually following along and doesn’t have a complete partisan slant knew the email thing was real, and not another Republican hatchet job. I knew what it was about, understood the implications and it was a serious black mark, in my own book, against Clinton. But, no, it’s not enough for me to change my mind and vote for the Trumpster. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Clinton because, as stupid as she was on this issue she is still orders of magnitude better than the idiotic alternative. Which puts this all into perspective…
:eek:
Even if I decided not to vote for Hillary, I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for someone like Trump.
She showed remarkably poor judgement regarding the e-mails. The reason for the private server was to shield those e-mails from FOIA requests or otherwise having them made public. Doing so raises the question of what’s in those e-mails that she doesn’t want made public?
Beyond the secrecy, the technical set up of the private e-mail server was terrible. She didn’t even make a basic effort to secure the system. It’s almost certain that hackers were able to penetrate it and access her e-mail. Likely resulting in classified information being acquired by enemy states.
In short, she created a security risk in order to thwart open record laws. That’s pretty bad as far as scandals go. Of course, she’s still not Trump.