Admit It. The Clinton Email Controversy Bothers You, Yet You Don’t Actually Know What the Clinton…
Ken Crossland

Most people will say TLDR to a point by point rebuttal like this, but here we go anyways.

I fully admit that the email scandal bothers me, not for unknown reasons, but precisely because i know what happened. My anger is informed.

Recently sworn in as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton decided to move from her AT&T account to the family server, which honestly, makes a lot of sense.

This move coincided with her taking on a new job that would have included many briefings on state department procedures, and proper methods for handling sensitive information and the storing of records. It was at this point, knowing that her job might entail her dealing with classified information entering her email, that she should have realized a private server was not a safe path to take. So no, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

While some classified information passed through Clinton’s servers, email isn’t generally the place where state secrets and strategies are talked about.

The server’s general function is irrelevant. When it comes to something as important as protecting national secrets, it was her responsibility to ensure that the server NEVER came close to touching that information, as you allude to further on.

And while classified messages did go through her private server, the hard truth is that the vast majority of them were classified after the fact

She has spoken at length about various departments’ tendencies to over classify material. Now whatever she might think about whether this or that material should be classified, one has to admit that she would at some point have had a pretty solid understanding of the type of material that, if not currently classified, would later be. I mean, she obviously knew this “upclassification” was going on. Therefore it’s a matter of simple judgment to realize that one shouldn’t keep information that is likely to be classified later on an unsecured server.

Classification is a strange beast in the government, and the rules aren’t exactly clear-cut.

This may very well be true, but it misses the point and muddies the water. Again, she has told us many times about the problem of over classification, which means she was aware it was going on. Shouldn’t this awareness have lead her to question whether some of the material that was on her server might well be classified later on, and therefore should be more properly protected? As with so many issues with her, it becomes a question of impropriety or poor judgment. Either of which, in my opinion, detracts from one’s suitability for any public office, much less the highest there is.

Does this forgive Clinton for having any classified data on her server? No. But she also wasn’t actively trying to use her email for that purpose, and she followed proper state guidelines with information she knew was sensitive.

Come now, we have no idea what she was actively trying to do. Also, if you say she followed department guidelines with information she knew to be sensitive, then you’re saying that she saw (either sent or received) thousands of emails that would become classified, and in not a single one of them did her judgment tell her that said material should have been classified.

Yes, but out of that 2093, only 110 were classified at the time

I’m really not sure that “only” has any place in that sentence. I mean seriously, “only” 110 classified emails? “But your honor, out of the thousands of times my client has had sex with women, only 110 of them were non-consensual. That should stand for something right? Right?…”

Even if she used a state account, that percentage would be identical, and state accounts are not immune to security breaches.

You’re right, government systems have been hacked before, and probably will be again. But bringing this up seems to conflate a private server in a home (which in response to concerns about the security of information on said server Mrs. Clinton reassured us by telling us it was guarded by the Secret Service, cause guns are great against hackers) with a government system that is designed to be as secure as possible. The fact that secure systems can be hacked is not an excuse to not take every precaution available anyways. That’s like saying that i’m not going to bother locking up my guns because someone in the neighborhood had their house broken into and their safe cracked, so why bother since 100% security doesn’t exist. Government systems being hacked is a red herring to draw attention from her poor judgment.

While hosting it on her own server wasn’t the smartest move by Clinton, you can hardly call it malice. It makes James Comey’s conclusion, which was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton, seem perfectly sound. There’s really nothing there.

Taken with the totality of the circumstances, i absolutely can call it malice. She has demonstrably lied about this issue, repeatedly. If all this was simply a non-tech savvy person innocently making decisions based on convenience, why lie about it so brazenly? Additionally, Comey’s and the DOJ’s credibility are belied both by the plethora of reasonable prosecutors who say they would have pursued charges, as well as the curious (read, highly irregular) incident of the attorney general meeting privately with Bill Clinton, a possible witness in an ongoing investigation into criminal charges, and the wife of the prime suspect.

Also additionally, the statutes that the FBI was investigating Hillary for violation of require the presence of negligence, not intent. Now, Comey himself called Hillary’s actions “extremely careless” also saying For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

Top secret/SAP emails MARKED classified when sent and received, putting to the lie another of her claims that nothing was marked classified. Those are the highest classifications our government has, so there’s no legitimacy of claims about over classifying to be had here. Now who’s going to look at this fact pattern and objectively decide that no reasonable prosecutor could see negligence?

Maybe, but Clinton wasn’t even close to being alone. The Washington Post reported in 2015 that one in three government employees were using personal email addresses to conduct business

“But your honor, my client isn’t the only one who committed this crime so why charge him?” Even if the WaPo report is true, it’s irrelevant because the reason one specific person’s email use is pertinent is because she’s running for the highest office in the land, and asking us to place our trust in her. When you run for president you voluntarily expose yourself to hyper-criticism, and the fact that others make the same mistakes as you doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for your own.

To Hillary Clinton, she is the government, and this is perhaps the number one reason why the email server raised no flags in her eyes.

Again i go back to the fact that when she started her job as secretary of state, she would’ve been giving security briefings and training on exactly how sensitive material should be handled, including a manual detailing a policy from 2005 telling employees not to use personal email for routine government work. It can’t be credibly argued that the server was nothing more than a prior arrangement thoughtlessly carried forward.

Was it working? Great. Did she care how it worked? No. It’s likely as simple as that

Well it depends on what you mean by “working”. Yes, it sent and received emails, but one of her job responsibilities was to communicate sensitive information through protected channels. Her server most definitely did not work for that.

…as we learned from above, one in three employees will conduct at least some business from their own accounts. While it’s for sure different that Clinton had her own set-up, is it truly any worse?

How many of those people conduct classified business from their accounts? As to your question, yes it is truly worse, because in addition to using private email to send and receive work related information, she actually stored it there in her own home (guarded with guns of course).

There’s been a concerted effort to paint her private server as something more nefarious than using Yahoo, but is it really? Both are mistakes, and frankly, classified information appearing on either is a disaster waiting to happen.

Both are disasters in waiting, i agree. As to being nefarious, that implies some amount of malice aforethought, and since her behavior on this subject has been highly disingenuous to say the least, it’s not a stretch to believe her choice of a private server was more than simple convenience, and instead was highly purposeful. So yes, it seems more nefarious than using Yahoo, their security breach notwithstanding.

But yet government employees are constantly doing this, with no end in sight.

Then each and every single one of them should be fired and charges pursued if warranted. It’s all well and good to say that the government systems aren’t keeping up with technology, or aren’t as user friendly and easy to use etc… That’s as may be, and if so than we should push to change it. However, none of that excuses a single government worker, who is the recipient of the public trust, from discharging their official duties (paid for by said public) in a manner consistent with current standards. The job a person wants to do may be for an ass backwards department stuck in the past, but until that department is dragged into the present, each and every department worker is responsible for adhering to policies as is. If they can’t, they shouldn’t have taken the job.

Clinton was under the impression that as long as she was emailing people with “.gov” addresses for official business, record keeping would take care of itself. Obviously this doesn’t quite hold water, since emails solely written between addresses wouldn’t fall under that umbrella, and therefore wouldn’t be automatically captured.

It also doesn’t hold water because she knew, as detailed in the Inspector General’s report, that her emails weren’t being received by the recipients. Her aides even suggested getting her a state department email, which she rebuffed.

However, after her term did end, Clinton and her team did make a substantial effort to get her messages into the public record.

Technically yes, this did happen after her term ended, but you make it sound like it happened in a timely, appropriate fashion. What should be pointed out is the fact that she went two years after leaving the department without lifting a finger to ensure that the federal records were saved. According to the IG, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

After separating her personal from her work emails, and complying with FOIA, the team asked what she wanted to do with the personal ones.

Here we come to one of the reasons everyone is so suspicious of this arrangement. There’s a reason you’re supposed to have a work email, which is to automatically preserve your work emails. Instead, we all have to rely on her judgment and simply take her word for the fact that all work related emails were turned over, and that not a single work related email was deleted in the supposedly personal emails. Mrs. Clinton clearly must have understood the importance of all work related emails being turned over, and ensuring not a single one fell through the cracks and went out with the personal. So, exactly what kind of exhaustive process did she use to go through all the emails? Ha! Trick question. She never bothered to do so herself, nor did she allow an impartial member of the state department to do so, instead she sent her lawyers to do it for her. How exhaustive was their search? They searched by keywords and header information, and never bothered to actually read the individual emails…

Director Comey said that her lawyers “did not individually read the content of all of her emails. Instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails…”

Do you or anyone else reading this honestly think this was a sufficient method of screening to ensure that no work emails were destroyed? Comey doesn’t. “It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.” By some he means around 15,000. That’s right, when Hillary said her lawyers conducted an “exhaustive” search of her emails and turned over ALL work related, she meant all except for the 15,000 that were deleted along with her personal, and later recovered by the FBI. Again we have to decide, malicious or incompetence?

here’s what she might be able to get across. I sort of just forgot that we were using it because it worked so well, and it was easier than what the government offered.

The thing is, she didn’t forget. Her staff told her that her emails weren’t being received for the sole reason that she was on a personal server, and recommended she move to the state servers. Her personal server use was clearly intentional.

I think Hillary Clinton has operated in the upper-stratosphere of public life for so long, that I generally feel like she doesn’t quite understand the optics of everything she does. She’s obviously a very smart woman, but the cocoon of government and power seems to have skewed her perspective on what the public does and doesn’t deserve to know

Not a one of these sounds like qualities i want in my president. No understanding of optics? An elitist and authoritarian view on what the public “deserves” from a president who wants to expand the size of the federal government? No thank you.

What irks the public is that we know that she knows that we know that Clinton doesn’t actually care that she used a private server, and the only thing she laments is that it blew up in her face.

I think you’re completely right. This is supported by the fact that it’s only now that she’s saying it was a mistake. Early on she just tried to make jokes about it and try to laugh it off. It wasn’t until she realized the issue had traction that she started the faux apologies.

In the 30-plus years that Bill and Hillary have been in the public eye, we’ve bristled at the way transparency always seems to be an inconvenience to them. They constantly want to work for the public, yet lose their shit when that same public wants accountability.

You know, that doesn’t sound to me like people who want to work for the public. That sounds an awful lot like a couple who want to work for themselves, and use the public to get there.

The Clinton email controversy isn’t about Hillary Clinton. It’s not about classified information. It’s about how we, as Americans, adapt to the changing world.

Yes it is to the first two. No it isn’t to the third. It’s about her either malicious or incompetent decision making in exclusively using a private server in the first place, then following that up by sending classified information on said server, then lying about it, then joking about it and deriding those of us that who thought it was a serious concern, then making fake-ass apologies as though none of us had been watching the whole time. Her malice/incompetence couples well with her blatant contempt for the American public to make her a horrible presidential candidate.

Like what you read? Give Shibboleth a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.