Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
Oh, it would be even easier if I approached these things like you do. "Do I like this person politically? Yes. Well then he/she cannot ever have done anything wrong!"
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.
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.