Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

I hope @doctorquant doesn't try to make any snide comments about this.

If he does, @RevPastor will be along to explain that this is standard procedure to combat an attempted hacking:

 

"Fallon told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Wednesday afternoon that "at the time that she took office and for the duration of her tenure there, the use of personal email for work purposes was not disallowed."
He attributed issues with retention of emails to "shoddy" record keeping at the State Department."

"State Department spokesman Mark Toner briefed reporters Wednesday: "While not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal email. The only requirement is that -- and the regulations do state this, that these records need to be preserved."

Hillary Clinton email use slammed in State Department report - CNNPolitics.com

And more:

"Officials have told The Washington Post that FBI investigators have so far found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. Clinton and her team have cooperated with the FBI, and officials have said they plan to interview Clinton about the matter soon."

"Each of the other former secretaries, in addition to current Secretary John F. Kerry, was interviewed for the IG review. The report cites “longstanding systemic weaknesses” in record keeping. It calls out former secretary Colin L. Powell for also violating department policy for his use of a personal email account while in office."

"Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Wednesday pointed to the IG report’s broader conclusions to say that Clinton’s “use of personal email was not unique, and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.” He said the report showed that the agency’s problems with records was “longstanding” and that, if Clinton ran the agency today, she would adopt the IG’s recommended fixes.

Fallon said that “political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report” for partisan purposes."

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

In other words, whoop de damn do.

 

I can always count on Baron to defend this.

Let's switch this up a bit. A big part of this to me is not just legalese. It goes straight toward ethics.

So, let's draw a comparison. Within your profession, do you condone violating journalistic ethics?

 

I'm sure Baron and a top Clinton aide are less biased than the State Department's IG.

 

Depends on what level of ethics is violated.

Plagiarizing from someone else, or using fake sources? Major ethical violation.

Signing a petition for a political candidate when you cover sports instead of politics and your own paper makes political endorsements? Minor ethical violation, if that.

For this case, how big is this, ethically? There wasn't much emphasis placed upon the rules on emails institutionally wide; there's not much consistency in how the rules were applied and her predecessors had broken rules previously, with lax enforcement.

So, let's continue the comparison. Say your newspaper had rules on email system usage. And let's say they were constantly broken, by everyone. And then, the executive editor went one further, and started using his own email server at home on his own. Keep in mind, there is no specific rule against it at that time, just a bunch of things that coulda, shoulda, woulda be interpreted as not allowing it. If you're a newspaper what do you do? Fire the EE, who does a great job otherwise, for this? Fire everyone for breaking rules on ... emails? Fuck no. They'd have one or two sessions with HR, with some videos, and a couple long-winded memos. And that would be it.

 

You've got a lot to respond to Baron:

 

Baron, good cut at it, I give you that.

I'm not at a keyboard at the moment, but the two immediate responses I have is that two wrongs do not make a right, and NATIONAL SECURITY was at stake. The stakes are way, way higher than running a newsroom.

 

What's there to respond to? She's already admitted she shouldn't have done it. But her point, which the report said itself, is that guidelines weren't clear. The report also ripped on Powell for not obeying the rules.

All that it amounts to is that some workplace rules were violated. Like I said earlier, if this was any other business, they'd hold some meetings, show some videos about proper procedures, and send out some memos.

 

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

But if it's not clear what is right or wrong, how can one know if what they are doing is wrong?

"National security at stake."

She's been gone out of office for four years now. Any secrets that would be of any use to any enemy would have been used by now.

 

The indictment is coming. Any day now.

 

The State Department IG clearly just feels threatened by a woman with strong opinions.

 

Baron,

A big problem that I have with your arguments is that you drive the expectations of information handling to the lowest common denominator - that is NOT how security works. There are standards and laws to follow and live UP to, not down to.

Got to call it a night. More soon. I can't type very well on a flaky five year old Android that just randomly rebooted on me.

Regards,
VB