Memo to Trump supporters and their fellow Hillaryphobes

Matt Yglesias↱ puts it simply: "The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign".
____________________

Notes:

Yglesias, Matthew. "The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign". Vox. 4 November 2016. Vox.com. 7 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2efuyOr

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's even worse, they are now saying it had been hacked five times. It's generally presumed that the purpose of the personal server was to evade the FOIA. Here's the address: hdr22@clintonemail.com, it's like a doormat for anyone looking to break in.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...he-set-up-to-route-around-foia-requests.shtml

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Among other things, the difference between breaking a law and not breaking it.

So? Now you don't know how dictionaries work?

He's very carefully not saying that. Because his professional reputation would be garbage if he did.

Your response was silly: Sessions was fired for cause - the Justice Department made an official finding that he had abused his office, violated his oath of office through unethical behavior.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many times has the Federal government email system for cabinet officers been hacked? Colin Powell's, while he was Secretary of State?

You don't know, right? Neither do I. As far as we know, nobody knows. We know Powell's was hacked at least once. But generally people hacking those kinds of targets don't leak the info - they keep it, for advantage. They hide the fact that they've got it. It's like a successful wiretap - a lot of the advantage depends on the target not knowing the info has been stolen. That is especially true of enemies of the US, who are also the most likely hackers. Why do you suppose enemies of the US would leak what they stole from Clinton's and associates email accounts?

Meanwhile, I tend to agree - I think Clinton was evading scrutiny of her private emails by others, including FOIA requests but especially Congressional fishing operations. Any idea why Clinton might have felt the need for better defense than the average cabinet officer? Think hard, it'll come to you. Hint: twenty five years of continual and obsessive and unjustified persecution for political gain by - - - -

 

Looking at it from a logical point of view, which service might offer better security, a home server or a system that is maintained and monitored by the State Dept? Really.

I think the private server only gives people more fuel to burn speculation regarding her honesty. Also, if you have nothing to hide, why go through the effort of avoiding public scrutiny? If I had Hillary's reputation, I would be going out of my way to be as transparent as possible. It just looks terribly deceptive, more so when she and her crew took the time to BleachBit 30,000 emails after receiving a subpoena. Lying about using the server to transmit classified documents also doesn't help her reputation.

It just seems that scandal follows the Clintons wherever they go. Probably because politics seems to have paid them well over the years, which also makes people question their integrity. Yeah, a lot of people don't trust Hillary, including many Democrats. A lot of them voted for her because they had no other choice, which is sad when you consider the scandal within the DNC (thank you Wikileaks). I'.m sorry to say many, many people now have their sights on Hillary.

I remember the sex scandal that plagued Bill. I think most people wouldn't have cared much had he not gone on national television and lied to the nation. Honesty would have gone a long way.

 

Or, as Matt Yglesias↱ notes:

It's become a bit of an article of faith among journalists frustrated with public officials' constant FOIA-dodging that this is all obviously dissimulation and Clinton was really trying to evade the Freedom of Information Act.

Many people, for example, point to the fact that Clinton would routinely travel with multiple digital devices as debunking her supposed convenience argument. But this is silly. I've been known to travel with an iPhone, an iPad, a Kindle, and a laptop all at once. That doesn't mean needing to carry two separate iPhones (one to check my work email and one to check my personal email) wouldn't be inconvenient. After all, what if I was replying to a work email while a text came in to my personal phone and I wanted to check it.

I'd be left juggling phones and looking like an idiot, exactly how federal employees tended to look in the heyday of the double-fisting phones era.

I would not want to do that. Colin Powell did not want to do that. Hillary Clinton did not want to do that. Because that would be terrible.

By contrast, it's a terrible solution to a desire to avoid having your emails disclosed to the public via FOIA. One way you can tell it's a terrible solution is that Hillary Clinton's work emails have been disclosed to the public. You can read them right here.

The specific timeline is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi requested Clinton's emails in the summer of 2014, at which point the relevant State Department personnel realized they did not have the emails because Clinton had been using her personal address. State asked Clinton for the emails, and she handed them over later that year. It was only in March of 2015 that the New York Times broke the story of Clinton's private server in a scoop by Michael Schmidt, which reported that the emails had been handed over to the State Department "two months ago."​

____________________

Notes:

Yglesias, Matthew. "The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign". Vox. 4 November 2016. Vox.com. 7 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2efuyOr

 

Interesting article, Tiassa. I searched for the least bias account that I could find... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Okay, I'm willing to assume those 30,000 emails that were deleted were just personal content. There's no way for us to know, so lets set that aside. We are still left with the reality that she was using a personal server for official business, passing confidential material on a system that was vulnerable to hack. In your mind, does that strike you as negligence or just bad judgement?

This is my view: If I get drunk and drive my car into a crowd of people, even if I didn't have intent to do so, am I still negligent? If Hillary parks state secrets on a personal server and that server is hacked by Russia, Germany and Korea, is she negligent? I think this is why people have a hard time believing she wasn't given a political pass. It does seem like a double standard.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...otos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

 

what makes you think it was vulnerable to a hack? ( i bet it was more secure than the gov's)

 

We can only speak on Hillary's handling of information as an official of the state.

Redux: "Extremely Careless"

 

In Clinton's case, a home server - for all the reasons mentioned above. In Powell's case, his home setup was less secure than Clinton's, and he was not being persecuted by crazy people with legal power - he probably would have been better off with State.

Nobody who can remember from one year to the next gives a damn what the jackal pack that has been hounding Clinton since the '90s has decided is their wingnut cause of the week.

You're joking, right? This is Hillary Clinton you're talking about. She is surrounded by deranged scum with no decency, trying to blow up anything she does or says at any time into public fake scandal on national TV. Meanwhile, she has important work to do.

Most people didn't care much. His popularity rose. He was impeached by the jackal pack that had taken over the Republican Party and decided to shanghai Congress and shut down the nation's business for weeks on end to talk about whether blow jobs counted as sexual intercourse.

The Clintons haven't gone anywhere. Liars and scandalmongers hound the Clintons whenever they take political power, and have been doing that for 25 years, is what you see.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/365344-clinton-treason-server-hacked/

 

Because Russia told you so....? That's your answer? You believe Russian state propaganda? Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what has become of his party.

 

You've never had a job at a workplace before, have you?

 

So the next step is to compare it with the State Department setup at the time.

 

Do you question their sources? Fine, here's another link that might alleviate your McCarthyism.
http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/1...agents-agency-very-likely-to-seek-indictment/

 

We're looking at a State Department that was managed by Hillary at the time.

 

If you have evidence that Trump has mismanage government secrets, by all means, share it here. I don't know how Trump will perform as a president, but I doubt it would require much effort to do better than HC.