Here we go...again...
Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years, 1 month ago to Politics
Greetings, fellow strikers. I am new to The Gulch. At least this one. I was fortunate to discover the fictional one in 1969. This is my first post, but not my last.
One of the very first posts I read as a new member was on this topic. While it was an informative post from a technical standpoint, I don't think the minutia of IP addresses etc. are really relevant to the issue, and are in fact a (perhaps intentional) distraction.
I believe this article is more to the important points, even more so in that it shows the beginnings of what I felt to be the almost certain classic Clintonian response. I claim no special savant status there, as Clinton damage control responses are as predictable as a bad sitcom.
To be more specific, I believe there is enough evidence, hard, real evidence based on past Clinton scandals to suggest that Hillary knew precisely what she was doing when she set up a private email server, and it had nothing to do with "convenience", and everything to do with knowingly maintaining the secrecy of her correspondence. Note that my use of the term secrecy vs. private is conscious and intentional
Call me a romantic, but I prefer to see things as they can be and should be, not simply the way they are.
What Hillary SHOULD have done is what every other honest employee of an organization, be it government or private, does: for work emails, use the system provided by your employer.
What Hillary did do would be unacceptable for mere mortals, and reeks of someone, again, wanting to keep secrets. Does anyone, except some really naive and trusting people, believe that those 55,000 emails she wants released represent all of the emails the public has a right to see? I really don't think so.
There will be more on this story and other things to post I'm sure. But I think the telling fact in this article is the beginning of the line that the server contains both official and private emails, and golly gee whiz, I'll be the one to decide what's released, and "this server will remain private". It is that last point that we must keep, and have a right to keep, from happening.
(edited for actypo)
One of the very first posts I read as a new member was on this topic. While it was an informative post from a technical standpoint, I don't think the minutia of IP addresses etc. are really relevant to the issue, and are in fact a (perhaps intentional) distraction.
I believe this article is more to the important points, even more so in that it shows the beginnings of what I felt to be the almost certain classic Clintonian response. I claim no special savant status there, as Clinton damage control responses are as predictable as a bad sitcom.
To be more specific, I believe there is enough evidence, hard, real evidence based on past Clinton scandals to suggest that Hillary knew precisely what she was doing when she set up a private email server, and it had nothing to do with "convenience", and everything to do with knowingly maintaining the secrecy of her correspondence. Note that my use of the term secrecy vs. private is conscious and intentional
Call me a romantic, but I prefer to see things as they can be and should be, not simply the way they are.
What Hillary SHOULD have done is what every other honest employee of an organization, be it government or private, does: for work emails, use the system provided by your employer.
What Hillary did do would be unacceptable for mere mortals, and reeks of someone, again, wanting to keep secrets. Does anyone, except some really naive and trusting people, believe that those 55,000 emails she wants released represent all of the emails the public has a right to see? I really don't think so.
There will be more on this story and other things to post I'm sure. But I think the telling fact in this article is the beginning of the line that the server contains both official and private emails, and golly gee whiz, I'll be the one to decide what's released, and "this server will remain private". It is that last point that we must keep, and have a right to keep, from happening.
(edited for actypo)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
And yes, "convenience" does take the cake. Sorry, Hillary, but perhaps in 1991 Bush Sr. had never seen a supermarket scanner (you guys certainly made hay of THAT), but there's a whole bunch of us "folks" who can handle multiple email accounts on their mobile phones, much less their computers. And someone very close to me can actually handle (and fit in her purse) her own personal iPhone for her own stuff, and a Blackberry that's the standard where she works. Golleee, Andy! Would ya believe it?
(edit for some typos)
Considering that relatively small amounts of IT support work are actually done by federal civil servants as opposed to their contractor counterparts, and the nature of the oddness of going to the Clinton's house to perform the work, it really does seem unlikely to me that any government employees were involved. I suspect that it was either an outsourced low-buck service that doesn't have anything necessarily available in the way of archiving (or she is scared to mention who it is), or was completely maintained by some private consultant in New York, also equally concerning (were they security-cleared, background checks, checks updated over this period of years, etc.) Or maybe as she likes to take advantage of in the way of free private jet flights, etc., maybe a 'good samaritan' volunteered to provide the on-site services expenses for her as a loyal patriotic gesture.
Back in the day... the Clintons & Gore had a lot of problems with foreign-nationals illegally contributing to their campaign... there could easily be some campaign donations in there that might be very troubling, for a sitting Secretary of State... maybe some trade deals were kicked back?
As I said in my original post, it matters not a whit where she hosted the account as far as her culpability and questions of ethics go. It certainly DOES matter as far as security implications, as you point out.
Ironically, I think the possibly most secure alternative, a private, physical server in her home (protected at least by the Secret Service) is also the most suspicious, as that would be the most, shall we say, "inconvenient" way to do it, but they would at least be in total control of the machine. And if so, perhaps she means, literally, "that server will remain private" (in my greedy little hands). In that case, even more reason to get that machine.
To use a 3rd party service, certainly possible and another and more "convenient" method, leaves open the wonderful possibility of backups existing somewhere, and a possible whistleblower...oh, I wish.
I know I will get flak from those who think she's untouchable, but IMCO there are enough swing voters who can handle work and personal emails accounts (and would be in danger of losing their jobs should they mix the two), and even handle multiple devices (my 15-yr can handle multiple devices easily, and at times, two at once: one in each hand). And they just aren't going to buy it this time. IF it can be kept before them, and articulated by someone other than say, a Bush...
And lest we forget, she was as equally anointed in 2008, until...
Time will tell...if the MSM lets this die down in the usual manner for a Clinton, then she'll survive. If they keep pursuing it, she's in trouble.
I think something is going on here even beyond the email issue. I still find it unusual that the NYT broke the story. Also, and it may just be wishful thinking, but it seems to me that the MSM is not quite in full cover-up mode, at least not yet.
Obviously Fox, the conservative and libertarian blogs etc. will keep on this, but I'll be interested if the mainstream press keeps digging, or goes into "ho-hum" mode soon.
Hillary is a combo of the worst aspects of her husband Bill, and Barack -- without their charm. Add to that her almost mind-fogging incompetence and what you have someone unable to lead, lazy, with wrong and incomplete premises. If that's not enough, when she is caught in her inability to lead or one of her outrageously bad decisions, she lies like a five year old who had just been found with her hand in the Halloween candy.
I look forward to seeing more.
NMA
Load more comments...