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

Hahahahaha Dr. Q is still very, very smart. You just have to take his word for it.

 

Don't forget that I'm terrified of strong women. And that you're happy I've admitted that.

 

I don't recall, but it seems about right. I'll just have to take your word for that, too.

 

The problem is that the people who don't like her overreach and it forces me to feel like I'm defending her in order to address the reality of the situation.

I find her record on transparency to be abhorrent. If you want to say that it's a scummy, immoral thing to do for government officials to seek ways to avoid transparency and circumvent sunshine laws, I'm right with you. I dislike it from Clinton as much as I dislike it from every county board any of us have covered.

But the case that she's going to end up in any legal trouble relies on the classic internet trope of googling the text of a law and screaming that a single semantic interpretation of it is the right one. It's the kind of binary, "rules are rules" thinking found often in the type of young man who spends a lot of time on the internet, I suppose. But in the real world, context and prevailing practices matter.

If sending sensitive information across private e-mail is a punishable crime, then you're going to have to lock up an extremely wide swath of the upper levels of government. If making a private server is what makes it distinct, then you're going to have to take up the rather nonsensical stance that giving sensitive information *directly* to third parties like Google is OK but a private server isn't. The FBI is going to end this security review by issuing a rather pointed report on the state of e-mail security in the executive branch, and that will be well-earned, but nobody is going to jail, let alone Clinton.

If anyone wants to have a real conversation about transparency and all the ways our government fails us, I'd be glad to have it, but that's not what this is about. This is just hand-rubbing glee that this is somehow going to be the thing that finally brings down an uppity liberal woman. I don't know if the intent is more sad or if it's the Charlie Brown-football relationship that is being played out yet again.

 

Don't forget the glee that can be translated, roughly, as "My candidate's not going to be indicted ... this time!"

The facts are that we mere mortals don't know the facts. We have, to my knowledge, reports regarding only those emails she/hers deigned to turn over*, and even among those classified information -- some of it likely "born secret" -- was present. A charitable inference is that Herself et al. were so clueless about the law(s) that they weren't capable of strategic deletions, meaning that the emails she/they deleted were of a personal nature. A more realistic inference, to my thinking, is that they attempted strategic deletions but weren't as effective as they needed to be.

I don't for a second think that HRC deliberately set out to jeopardize security. I do think that HRC set out to, as you say, do "a scummy, immoral thing ... to avoid transparency and circumvent sunshine laws ..." and didn't much give a fuck whether: A) that was appropriate; and/or B) there might be consequences (to her or others). That's what bothers the hell of me about this.**

And, I'm sorry, this is entirely about the ways our government (left, right, Dem, Repub, you name it) fails us. When politicians encounter that fork in the road between what-I-should-do and what's-best-f0r-me, this is exhibit 6,524,928,573 of how they'll choose.


*If indeed some of the deleted ones have been recovered and reported on, I will gladly amend that statement.

**Oh, and the fact that she's a powerful, competent woman.

 

I'd take the pearl-clutching over security a lot more seriously if it wasn't only targetting her and not the many, many other government officials at top levels who conduct work e-mail over personal accounts.

 

Digging In? Is that like Leaning In?

 

Did anyone link the WaPo article that came out a few days ago? It's worth reading, no matter what side of the fence you are on this. Story here:

How Clinton’s email scandal took root

I am interested in opinions of this article. I think it gives a lot of insight into what the FBI is finding, and that is ultimately what matters, not so much our armchair thoughts, but what the FBI thinks, and whether they recommend indictment to the AG.

 

It was a good piece. I've read that there wasn't a lot of new information in it, but I think newspapers serve their readers well by occasionally offering up these lengthy explanatory pieces to stories that kind of start to get away from everyone when they are reported piece meal. The Atlantic had a tremendous piece that I remember last year about ISIS, for example. How it recruits. What its goals are. Whether it is succeeding. That's one I wouldn't mind seeing revisited.

 

Second judge says Clinton email setup may have been in 'bad faith'

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A second federal judge has taken the rare step of allowing a group suing for records from Hillary Clinton's time as U.S. secretary of state to seek sworn testimony from officials, saying there was "evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith."

The language in Judge Royce Lamberth's order undercut the Democratic presidential contender's assertion she was allowed to set up a private email server in her home for her work as the country's top diplomat and that the arrangement was not particularly unusual.

He described Clinton's email arrangement as "extraordinary" in his order filed on Tuesday in federal district court in Washington.

Referring to the State Department, Clinton and Clinton's aides, he said there had been "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials."

 

To cranberry's and Baron's ritual "Well I'm not voting for her now!" response to this, may I just say ...



I am gobsmacked!