So far, Clinton email story is mostly an exercise in circular reasoning

REUTERS/David Becker
Hillary Clinton speaking during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas on Tuesday.

Writing for the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog, Paul Waldman perfectly captures my feeling about the current state of the Hillary Clinton email-server story and the news media’s role in keeping it going when there’s nothing new. He wrote: “the story is a story because it’s a story, and therefore we need to keep talking about it because it’s a story.”

It’s easy enough to assume now, and Clinton would surely agree, that it would have been better if she had used a government server for her work-related emails when she was secretary of state.

But how big a mistake was it to set up her own server and use that? Was any damage done to national security as a result and, if so, how serious and how disqualifying is it to her presidential ambitions?

The FBI is investigating the matter. I have yet to read or hear that serious damage to national security has been found in the sense that sensitive information reached improper parties who made use of the information to inflict damage on the United States. That would be the big enchilada, or does one mean the full Monty?

On the other hand, some material on the server has been described as sensitive and deserving of a secret classification. We don’t know much yet what it was about and we have no evidence yet that anyone who shouldn’t have seen the material saw the material. Clinton continues to repeat, fairly ritually, that she neither received nor sent any information in an email on her server that was classified secret at the time she received or sent it and she says that the FBI agrees with this statement. (It’s not clear to me that the FBI has publicly confirmed that this is what they have concluded.)

If the investigation finds that U.S. national security was damaged by Clinton’s fairly inexplicable server decisions, we will be able to decide as voters how to take that into account in assessing her as a presidential candidate.

Here’s a slice of what Waldman wrote, after a Clinton press conference, about the media’s questions on the matter at a recent event:

“A reporter asked Clinton at that press conference: ‘Is this an indication that this issue isn’t going to go away for the remainder of your campaign?’ It was an all too familiar meta-inquiry, not about the substance of the issue (though there were questions about that too) but about the questions the reporters themselves are asking, and whether the candidate thinks reporters are going to keep asking them. Unfortunately, candidates get questions like that all the time. How will this controversy affect your campaign? Why aren’t these questions going away? Doesn’t this issue suggest that this is an issue? It’s as if the reporter decides that asking about the substance isn’t getting anywhere, so they might as well treat the candidate like a panelist on The McLaughlin Group. And the candidate never says anything remotely interesting or informative in response.”

It gets more circular. If you are curious, the reporter who asked Clinton whether reporters were going to keep asking her the question was from NBC, according to coverage of the event by reporter Amy Chozick of The New York Times. Chozick’s piece mostly focuses on the earlier, longer exchange about the emails between Ed Henry of Fox News and Clinton. That exchange is pretty hilarious because Henry wanted Clinton to say whether she personally had “wiped” the server before turning it over, but it becomes clear that neither Henry nor Clinton knows what it actually means to “wipe” a server. (I certainly don’t.)

The NBC reporter who asked Clinton whether “this” (presumably meaning the exchange with Henry) means the issue won’t go away for the duration of the campaign was referring to Henry’s question. Chozick’s piece ends thus:

“But by then a visibly irritated Mrs. Clinton had already made her way toward the door. She threw a wristy wave goodbye to the press corps as she said, ‘Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys.’” 

Anyway, Watergate babies like me understand that just because something is being “investigated” within the executive branch doesn’t mean that the investigation will be thorough or even honest. But it’s also true that the Watergate scandal wasn’t unraveled by reporters at press conferences asking President Richard Nixon whether he understood that they were going to keep asking him.

I would also be happy if the journo-gaggle would pester Clinton to take clearer positions on several issues.

Comments (59)

  1. Submitted by Bill Kahn on 08/21/2015 - 09:12 am.

    Well, what is one more vague story that Republicans can twist any which way they like to distract from their growing insidious field of memes.

  2. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 08/21/2015 - 09:39 am.

    She’s guilty of

    RWC (Running While Clinton).
    Nothing can absolve her of that.
    …..
    And ‘wiping a server’ would mean erasing all of the content on its hard drive.
    There are various ways that this can be done, ranging from simply and easily recovered to difficult, requiring serious equipment, and returning the server to close to its original state.
    Short of physically destroying the drive, -something- could still be recovered, but it might not be of any value.
    So it depends on the skill level of who did the wiping and how seriously they took it. That probably depends in turn on the sensitivity of what was actually on the drive.

  3. Submitted by Scot Wilcoxon on 08/21/2015 - 09:51 am.

    Proof of damage is not necessary

    You’re demanding proof that injury to the country has happened. That is not necessary. Mishandling of classified information is a crime in itself. If classified information went through a third party’s network or server, unless all the maintenance people had proper security clearances, then the information was where it should not be. Such information flowing through the public Internet is a violation.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    Hillary has said that she did not see information which was marked classified. Classified emails have already been found.. It may be true that she did not see information which was labeled “CLASSIFIED”, but that is because there is no classification level with that name. There are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classifications, but no Classified. But that is undignified word play which bypasses the meaning of the conversation.

  4. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 08/21/2015 - 09:51 am.

    Same tactic, different Clinton

    The Clintons and their friends in the press are masters at getting them out of jams by creating red herrings and mischaracterizations as to the true nature of their scandal to distract and purposely misinform the voting public.

    When Bill Clinton was being sued in federal court for violating the civil rights of a young female employee, the only sitting president to be successfully sued while in office, the plaintiff’s attorneys attempted to subpoena Monica Lewinsky as a witness to corroborate the assertion that this was a pattern of behavior on the part of Bill Clinton. Clinton’s reaction was to contact other young females he had violated to convince them not to testify and to lie to the grand jury about his actions.

    The articles of impeachment reflect those facts. He was impeached for witness tampering and lying to a federal grand jury and in a federal courtroom.

    Yet at the time and to this day, the press has managing to convince the public that Bill Clinton was impeached for having consensual sex with an intern. “It’s all about sex” was the red herring that convinced the low-information voters that it was all none of our business. He was disbarred for five years and made to pay $750,000 to the plaintiff, but it “was all about consensual sex.”

    Fast forward to “Servergate.”

    The purpose of the private server wasn’t to make things more convenient for the alleged technophobe Mrs. Clinton. The fact that as Secretary of State, all of her communications with and about any and all foreign governments would be classified seems obvious. I worked in government communications and as an undercover naval courier for the last 18 months of my naval career. I know what gets classified and what doesn’t and so does she.

    The fact that she and her lawyer are essentially admitting that she mishandled and then destroyed government documents that were sought as part of a congressional investigation and then wiped the server clean before turning it over to the FBI says that she is willing to accept the consequences for at least two felonies, and make all this go away, rather than have to expose the real holy grail that was on that server.

    I suspect that what Mrs. Clinton is really trying to hide is evidence and records of influence peddling on a scale this nation’s never seen before. Influence peddling with foreign entities, governments and private concerns, on a multimillion dollar scale that make the sale of the Lincoln bedroom look like peanuts. Awarding favors within the powers of the Secretary of State to grant in return for $500,000 speech fees for her husband and other multimillion dollar contributions to the Clinton tax-free private account known as the Clinton Foundation.

    The question of whether or not classified information may or may not have been sent or received on the Clinton server is this generation’s version of “it’s all about consensual sex” and the press is once again playing their part perfectly.

    • Submitted by Kurt Nelson on 08/21/2015 - 10:13 am.

      It appears

      Dennis, that you’ve got the goods on the Clintons – so go get em. I mean, what’s stopping you, what with all your proof and indignation.

    • Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/21/2015 - 10:24 am.

      Peddling of influence

      “I suspect that what Mrs. Clinton is really trying to hide is evidence and records of influence peddling on a scale this nation’s never seen before.”

      Somewhat ironically, it’s the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump who has acknowledged having influence peddled to him by politicians.

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 08/21/2015 - 02:00 pm.

      one moe thing

      Don’t forget what the definition of “is” is. Funny when the shoe is on the other foot how the far left comes to the defense as though it is a non story. One can only imagine the hysterical smear campaigns via social media and “news” reporters if it was a Republican. Chris Christie took more heat and hysteria for some lane closures.

      • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 08/22/2015 - 11:23 pm.

        Much More Things

        Clinton having sex with interns didn’t kill anyone. Christi’s lane closures did. Also Christi’s actions were a spiteful flex of power that punished the people who voted for him as well as those who didn’t. Both Clinton and Christi’s moves were pretty dumb, but I think we can all agree that Christi’s had a much wider impact.

        As far as Mrs. Clinton’s emails go, this isn’t something every other candidate plus the Bush administration hasn’t also done. It looks like a tempest in a tea cup.

  5. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/21/2015 - 10:01 am.

    A question

    ‘Is this an indication that this issue isn’t going to go away for the remainder of your campaign?’

    Is this a significant question to ask? Reporters who are so concerned with maintaining their own objectivity, sometimes overlook the problems of those who aren’t objective, indeed who make a point of their non objectivity. As a political partisan, and a Democrat of the yellow dog persuasion, I proudly possess some of those qualities of partisanship and bias, that journalists try to avoid, and many in the chattering class revile. And as a divisive partisan, I am very much concerned about issues that nag, with the potential to grind a campaign down. The email issue with respect to Hillary, isn’t meta to me at all, it’s very real and of very present concern, and if it’s going to get worse it’s really time to address it now.

  6. Submitted by Kevin Watterson on 08/21/2015 - 10:22 am.

    One of the more laughable and desperate ways I’ve seen lately of trying to diminish a story. Kudos. You’d be more credible to simply write, “Please stop talking about this because it damages the candidate’s chances of becoming president.”

    • Submitted by Anthony Walsh on 08/21/2015 - 11:46 am.

      Not this one

      “Please stop talking about this because it damages the candidate’s chances of becoming president.”

      I think you are mistaken, that was the rationale behind the Bush V. Gore Supreme Court decision.

  7. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/21/2015 - 10:38 am.

    Scandal narrative

    Republicans and the media have always employed a scandal narrative in dealing with the Clintons. The result is that the Clintons have often failed to meet standards never imposed on other political leaders. Perhaps the most famous example of that is the Clinton sex scandal, resulting in impeachment proceedings brought by Republicans, pretty much all of whom had the same issues themselves.

    I expect it’s true that Mrs. Clinton is not telling the truth, in various respects, about email issues. But President Bush didn’t tell us the truth about the decision to go to war with Iraq. And it is undoubtedly true that candidates like Jeb Bush, are not truthful about their intention to go to war with Iran. We just don’t know that as well, because truth about issues of war and peace, the issues that really matter, are much harder to pin down. For some reason, we are more accepting of lies on the big issues than we are on the little issues.

  8. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 08/21/2015 - 08:21 pm.

    Circular reasoning

    belongs in a circular file.

  9. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 08/21/2015 - 12:46 pm.

    There’s a press failure at issue here, and Mr. Black is right to shine a light on it: It’s not just with Hillary Clinton that the press keeps asking questions about itself, rather than about any campaign issue. They do it with Bernie Sanders, too. And on Trump, with all the candidates, both GOP and Democratic. Relevant or not. In Europe, it’s called looking at your own belly button.

    The press is obsessed with itself, with stories they create and recycle endlessly. The great number of them really are too young and immature and restless non-researchers to ask meaningful questions of any of the candidates. Talk about a sorry scene; you really feel sorry for the candidates!

    The press will keep this alive because the press is lazy. Badly schooled in journalism. Wanting artificial “conflicts.”

    So boring.

  10. Submitted by Joseph Skar on 08/21/2015 - 12:58 pm.

    John Deutch

    Is this really that different than John Deutch? Improper handling of classified information followed by presidential pardon.

    http://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

  11. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 08/21/2015 - 01:21 pm.

    I get it….

    I guess Mr. Black did not graduate or even attend the Bob Woodward school of “real Journalism.”

    Also, I guess if her actions did not harm the U.S. there is no crime.

    Next we will read that H. C. is a “moderate deficit hawk.”

  12. Submitted by joe smith on 08/21/2015 - 01:52 pm.

    This sheds light on Hillary’s decision making and her ability or lack of ability to take responsibility for her actions. Her trustworthy numbers in polls are upside down. The media asking her questions is a window into her credibility as a leader. So far she has been brutal in her responses to tough questions. Time will tell if there is a chargeable offense, until then the media should do its job and ask her tough questions. I doubt Fox News Ed Henry is as tough as Putin will be even with that flashy red re-set button Hillary gave the Russians!

  13. Submitted by kevin terrell on 08/21/2015 - 02:20 pm.

    Some animals are more equal than others

    I had Top Secret SCI clearance. I can assure you that if I set up a separate server where people emailed me TS/SI/TK/NOFORN information and then wiped the server, with or without a cloth, I’d be in jail for a very long time. But then I am not the appropriate level of pig.

    Hillary wallows most excellently.

    The government you deserve awaits you, America, if you vote for Hillary Clinton.

  14. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 08/21/2015 - 07:13 pm.

    Changing the subject

    I think Mr. Black is trying to change the subject here. The reason this issue doesn’t go away is two-fold. First, the events show that Hillary Clinton thinks that she is above the law and may disregard common rules and then blame everyone else for that. As a result, people see her as not trustworthy. And, second, her deleting 30,000 or so emails as private without second party making that determination prevents Congress from wrapping up investigation of some events that took place during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as a Secretary of State. And, since people don’t trust her, the reasonable conclusion is that she was trying to hide something by deleting those emails. There is absolutely no circular reasoning here.

    And, by the way, it is quite possible that Hillary Clinton is thinking now that she was very smart when she decided to use her own server (I mean, if there were some incriminating e-mails among those deleted which we may never know). Also, how is it possible that Secretary of State never got or sent classified information? So “If the investigation finds that U.S. national security was damaged by Clinton’s fairly inexplicable server decisions,” we won’t be deciding anything about her because she will be in jail…

    Mr. Foster, where is the evidence that President Bush lied about Iraq? Where is the evidence that Jeb Bush is lying? You just assume that because he is a Republican and you don’t like him. With Clinton there are facts…

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 08/21/2015 - 09:50 pm.

      For ‘net illiterates

      Emails never live on just one server.
      That’s the whole point of the internet — communications jump from server to server leaving copies along the way. Any emails that she sent or received are still out there someplace in cyberspace; it’s just a question of retrieving them.
      The real issue is proving provenance — if they’re not on her own server she can claim that they’re fake, although an IP trail would make that unlikely.
      So the question is not whether the emails were sent or received — it’s whether they’re in her possession.

  15. Submitted by John Appelen on 08/21/2015 - 10:02 pm.

    I suspect Hillary is really wishing right now that she had carried 2 phones to manage her private and government email seperately. I am pretty sure my company wouldn’t allow me to run work communications on a private system…

    • Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 08/22/2015 - 09:30 am.

      Really!

      With the right that most companies now reserve to contact their employees and receive responses 24/7,…

      and their unwillingness to go to the expense of providing employees with dedicated communication devices for “official” use,…

      it’s far more likely the case that vast amounts of “company” information are being sent to employees at their private e-mail addresses, being received on their home computers or personal communication devices,…

      and leaving trails ALL OVER cyberspace for those who wish to do so to follow,…

      for whatever purposes.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 08/24/2015 - 02:16 pm.

        Airplane Mode

        My work phone is always on but it is either in a drawer or in airplane mode when I do not want to listen to it…

        If want to login to my work email via my home PC, I need to login to the work server.

        By the way, no one has to answer their email 24/7 or work for an over bearing company… We are free to find a new employer or start our own business when ever we want.

        • Submitted by jason myron on 08/25/2015 - 12:13 pm.

          Try ignoring your phone working

          as a sales rep, marketing, IT, sourcing or any other number of professions and see how long you’re employed. As for changing jobs at the drop of a hat, tell that to someone in their mid fifties or early sixties. Once again…not everyone is you.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 08/22/2015 - 09:47 am.

      But if you were an officer of that company

      you could do whatever you wanted to.

    • Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 08/22/2015 - 11:29 am.

      Come on…

      She knew exactly what she was doing….and why she was doing it.

  16. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 08/22/2015 - 09:38 am.

    This ENTIRE Issue

    is nothing more nor less than the Republican Party’s,…

    and the MSM’s (a solely owned subsidiary of the 1%),…

    effort to use continuous, and,..,

    if the media would do even a 1/1000th of a gram of research,…

    provably false or irrelevant scandal mongering,…

    to try to convince the general public that Hillary Clinton is secretive, nefarious, bad, nasty, not to be trusted, etc., etc., etc.,…

    to try to distract us from the fact that their collection of candidates does not contain a single individual who has the emotional maturity, intellectual capacity, psychological stability and spiritual acumen to lead this country.

    Each and every one of the Republican candidates has already proven him or herself to be a “bad boss” of the very WORST kind.

    None of us would want to work for a company of which they were in charge.

    WHY would we want to put such people in charge of our entire nation?

  17. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/22/2015 - 09:38 am.

    Naivete

    “Emails never live on just one server.
    “That’s the whole point of the internet — communications jump from server to server leaving copies along the way”

    What kind of amazes me as a user of internet services is now extraordinarily naive, or perhaps how extraordinarily ill advised, Mrs. Clinton is about internet matters. Mr. Brandon is correct in suggesting that internet communications are permanent or at the very least have to be assumed to be. The first thing I would tell any first time user of any internet service is that you have to assume anything you do on the internet is forever.

    Mrs. Clinton made the decision to commingle her personal with her business emails. Since the earliest days of the internet, this is a choice every employee has at some point had to make. In all of those years, has any employee made the choice Mrs. Clinton made, to made to commingle personal and business emails, which always risks her employer having access as of right to both? Who advised her to do that? What chain of reasoning could possibly have occurred to her that would have convinced her that was a good idea?

    • Submitted by jim hughes on 08/24/2015 - 03:22 pm.

      there’s a practical limit to security

      Cell phones aren’t “safe” either – as we showed by tapping Angela Merkel’s. If the top national officials can’t use phones or email, how are they supposed to get anything done? There are obvious practical limits to how secure any communication can be. At some point we simply have to put our trust in these people, even if we didn’t vote for them. That’s how the world works.

  18. Submitted by Matt Haas on 08/22/2015 - 10:11 am.

    After quick perusal of the comments section

    My previous thoughts remain. When someone who might have been a likely Clinton voter cares, this becomes an issue. As all I see are right wingers whipping themselves into the usual froth over an issue only THEY care about (as is the case on the national scene as well), about a candidate they wouldn’t vote for even if she were the only one running… Meh.

  19. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/22/2015 - 10:23 am.

    where is the evidence that President Bush lied about Iraq?

    I didn’t say President Bush lied about Iraq. What I said is that he didn’t tell us the truth about Iraq, something for which there is a wealth of evidence.

  20. Submitted by John Ellenbecker on 08/22/2015 - 08:06 pm.

    What law was broken?

    What law was broken and what evidence do you have? Please be specific.

  21. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 08/22/2015 - 08:52 pm.

    Who cares about what

    Mr. Foster, please provide that “wealth of evidence.”

    Mr. Haas, Mr. Kapphahn, if it were only right-wingers who cared about this, Clinton would not have had the upside down rating.

    Mr. Brandon, just a reminder, the State department did not keep the records until recently…

    • Submitted by jason myron on 08/23/2015 - 01:19 pm.

      Right after you provide

      evidence that Clinton committed any crime. As for upside down ratings, Clinton still has better approval nationally than any GOP challenger.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 08/24/2015 - 01:23 pm.

        Right!

        Something about the assumption of innocence.
        Or is Mr. Gutman recommending that we go to the Napoleonic code, in which guilt is assumed and the onus was on the accused to prove their innocence.

  22. Submitted by jim hughes on 08/23/2015 - 03:37 pm.

    meaning of ‘classified’

    While every member of the executive branch is supposed to play by the rules to some extent, it’s a bit naive to claim that those at the very top don’t have something to say about who gets to know what. If “classified” means, literally, “no one can ever disclose this to anyone, ever”, then high-level disarmament talks would never have gone anywhere. At some point the President, and the Secretary of State, can tell Vladimir Putin what they think he needs to know in order to achieve some policy goal. So it seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to be criticizing the way the Secretary of State handled confidential information.

    President Kennedy diffused the Cuban missile crisis by exchanging secret written communications with Krushchev, delivered by 3rd parties who lacked top-level security clearance. We can be pretty sure that some of the content of those notes was, in some sense, ‘classified’ information. And we should all be glad that this happened.

    And does anyone seriously believe that Dick Cheney – for example – didn’t have his own back channels of communication?

  23. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/24/2015 - 06:18 am.

    Mr. Foster, please provide that “wealth of evidence.”

    President Bush and his administration said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This was not true.

  24. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 08/24/2015 - 08:51 am.

    We make the news because we ARE the news

    For pity’s sake… No, I don’t want to vote for another Clinton. No, I don’t think she’s being totally honest. I do think that the whole thing was a REALLY dumb (maybe dishonest?) idea on her part. BUT…Does anyone think that ANY of the other candidates (except for maybe Bernie) is totally honest and trustworthy? They’re POLITICIANS!! So, I must assume that the reason “servergate” is news is because the “journalists” continuing to report it are lazy. Or are paid by someone who wants to keep it in the news (partisan or otherwise). If they were doing their jobs, we’d have a whole plethora of scandals from which to pick as being most insidious. Or, maybe if they did their jobs WELL, we’d be talking about the real issues. Hmm. Maybe we’d even hear about Bernie once in a while rather than either Trump or Hillary’s emails (or hair–both seem to be of equal importance to the “news”), both of which have very little chance of being relevant next November other than causing the front runners to lag in the polls. No wonder Americans despise politics and voting so much. They’re going to be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils next November…if they vote at all…because everybody’s got dirt but the media make the dirt into the issues.

  25. Submitted by DENNIS SCHMINKE on 08/24/2015 - 10:53 pm.

    Hillary Server

    Eric–It is not ‘a story because it is a story’. It is a story because it is a Big Deal. It says a LOT about her judgement–and the Clinton’s general political slipperiness, etc.

    Why is Eric Black so incurious? Why does she want/need her own server? Hint–it is not for security, and not for ‘convenience’–unless it is for future non-traceability, unaccountability, non-transparency, ad infinitum.

    Clintons get to make their own rules. Laws are for the little people. They are Big People. What would happen to the average State Dept worker-bee who tried this? A–Fired at a minimum–maybe 5-10 in a federal pen. Sure as h311 would not be running for president.

    Gag me!

    • Submitted by Anthony Walsh on 08/25/2015 - 08:18 am.

      Pretend

      At the point where we pretend that the politicians we support didn’t do exactly the same thing, sometimes to a more egregious degree, our protestations become nakedly meaningless, and serious commentators and readers become less likely to take our comments and communications seriously. Fairness and avoiding hypocrisy (word?) are a mark of honorable people.

      • Submitted by Sean Olsen on 08/25/2015 - 10:52 am.

        Right. Jeb Bush had his own e-mail server and self-selected which e-mails he disclosed. Scott Walker has aides under indictment for activities uncovered on a private e-mail network used when he was Milwaukee County Executive. Bobby Jindal and his aides used private e-mail addresses in Louisiana. Both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee spent thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to destroy computers used by officials in their administration on the way out the door as governor of their respective states. Senior Bush administration officials hid over 5 million e-mails (some believed to be related to the firing of U.S. Attorneys) on servers hosted by the RNC.

        So, yes, let’s complain about Hillary’s poor decision here. But she’s hardly the first (and likely won’t be the last).

    • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 08/25/2015 - 12:10 pm.

      Email Server

      I have yet to see any evidence that Hilary broke any laws at all. Perhaps you or someone else can point me in the direction of the indictment.

      If the story says a lot about Hilary’s judgement, then it says the same about many other presidential candidates who have done exactly the same thing. Who are you not outraged by their behavior?

    • Submitted by jason myron on 08/25/2015 - 02:31 pm.

      You make a lot of assumptions, Dennis.

      So we should also assume that anything you do to maintain privacy is because you’re up to something nefarious?

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 08/25/2015 - 10:24 pm.

        Maintain Privacy

        Jason,
        So are saying that Hillary wanted her government emails kept secret from others in government?

        Oh Oh !!!

        • Submitted by jason myron on 08/26/2015 - 10:04 am.

          No

          I’m saying that she wanted them kept safe. Who got hacked ..her server or the governments? We both know the answer…at least I do.

          • Submitted by John Appelen on 08/26/2015 - 04:53 pm.

            Maybe we should outsource government computer systems to her third party provider then. I wonder what their security clearance was?

            • Submitted by jason myron on 08/26/2015 - 06:23 pm.

              Or maybe

              the government shouldn’t automatically accept the lowest bid for services just to appease the people who whine about their tax burden everyday. The fact is, her security was pretty good as no one knew she even had it to hack. As for the government’s …well, we already know.

              • Submitted by John Appelen on 08/27/2015 - 05:44 pm.

                So

                Every government employee should be allowed and encouraged to set up their own stealth servers? That is an idea.

                • Submitted by jason myron on 08/27/2015 - 08:28 pm.

                  Great equation..

                  “every government employee” = The Secretary of State…you’re on a roll. For the last time, there was no rule at the time forbidding Clinton from using private email or server.

  26. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 08/25/2015 - 09:59 pm.

    Crime (or not)

    Mr. Myron, Mr. Brandon, I never said Clinton committed crime – I said she was lying.

    Mr. Foster, you said that Bush did not tell the truth about Iraq which is usually an equivalent of lying. However, if you mean that what he said later turned out to be wrong, it would be correct except one cannot blame a person for saying something that person believes to be true. Which makes it different from Clinton… And what did you say about Jeb Bush?

  27. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 08/26/2015 - 03:18 pm.

    Mr. Foster, you said that

    “Mr. Foster, you said that Bush did not tell the truth about Iraq which is usually an equivalent of lying.”

    Well, it’s never the equivalent of lying. I wrote that sentence very carefully to avoid the issue of lying which often turns into a red herring in discussions of this kind. What we know, what this history teaches us is that political leaders often don’t speak the truth or know the truth. Quite often, they make an effort to avoid the truth. What we know now to a much greater extent than we knew then, is that political leaders rely on intelligence from entities that can turn out to be entirely clueless.

    Has Jeb Bush learned these lessons? Because of his relationship to his brother, he seems unable to discuss these issues freely or candidly. That may be to his credit as a brother, but family relationships shouldn’t have any bearing at all on important issues of state, and how someone seeking my vote approaches and discusses them.

  28. Submitted by Luke Soiseth on 08/27/2015 - 04:55 pm.

    Shiny Things!

    The issue is seriously dogging her and certainly inflames her opponents and others who would never vote for her anyway. The rest of the country has a very “meh” response at this point, probably because we know next to nothing – or at least little of that which matters, despite the bajillion words already written about it. It’s the new exciting shiny thing that doesn’t bog down in substantive details, complex ideas, or tough policy questions.

    And either way, it will come out at some point and then we’ll know. In the meantime, most of her supporters would vote for a backhoe before they’d vote for Trump or Cruz so this probably doesn’t affect her chances all that much if she does survive this, and Clintons (and Bushes) are rather like cockroaches in that sense. Clinton lied to America when he had an affair with an intern and GW Bush lied to America when he used the military to attack Iraq, bring us to war, and turn the Middle East into a veritable playground for terrorists. And they both have libraries.

    That’s America, baby! We’re nothing if now forgiving and forgetful for our own.

Leave a Reply