Interesting in regards to a post elsewhere on the topic.
Interesting in regards to a post elsewhere on the topic. (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is an unassailable analysis. My impression is that nothing in legal stuff is unassailable, but ye legals would know better.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
I wish I could find it again, but some months ago I read a good article which made two points, one of which the ABC article agrees with and the other it does not really address one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteThe point they agree on is that regardless of the sturm und drang from rabid Republicans about prosecution and criminality and all that, this was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
The point ABC doesn't really address is that while the rhetoric is inevitably partisan about these things, the reality is almost invariably status based: As a friend of mine with a military background often puts it, "Different spanks for different ranks."
And that accords quite well with my personal experience. I have (had, since after a year of good behavior it was expunged) exactly one security transgression on my record: I left a floppy disk (which tells you how long ago this was) in an air-gapped computer unattended, and a security audit found it. Said disk had no classified information on it (it was written to by software that only wrote appropriate information to it.) No classified information was ever found on it. No allegation was made that the disk had ever had classified information on it. But it was a violation of security and data-handling procedures to leave that thing unattended.
I'm not going to complain that I got caught: It was a fair cop. I was not sufficiently mindful, and the transgression occurred as documented. I don't even like talking about it, really-- it was stupid. But it does illustrate that care to be exercised with this sort of thing.
And so I do reserve the right to look askance at a system whereby if I had done anything even approaching the magnitude of what, e.g., Clinton, Berger, Petraeus, Deutch, and others from either side of the aisle had done, I would at the very least have had my clearance permanently revoked, my job taken, my career irreparably damaged, and very possibly had a hefty fine levied against me as parting kick to the head.
(It is driving me nuts that I can't find it, now, because it was published at a highly opportune time: Right about the time several staunch-to-rabid Republican co-workers were mouthing off about it.)
"Different spanks for different ranks" is awesome and I'm stealing it.
ReplyDeleteAlas, you are not stealing from me-- I can only wish I had coined that one.
ReplyDeleteIf there were going to be a sudden shift in society and equal treatment for all, I would be stunned into genuine medical shock and possibly catatonia. That said, I have to ask. If having a private server was such a violation of policy and protocol, if not law, why was it ever allowed? That's just stupid.
ReplyDeleteThey supposedly take away the car keys, credit cards, and smart phone from the President for, I assume, security reasons. Are they really going to give them back because he throws a tantrum? So if the Secretary of State is arranging to do something outright stupid, not to mention a violation of everything, are we really supposed to believe that they'd throw a tantrum and thereby get their way? That wouldn't say much for the White House, or our national security.
I have a lot of problems with this situation, but if there isn't a prosecutable matter of law, here, can we please shut up and try to run the country? Which apparently includes revising and enforcing some sensible security policies.
"Shut up and try to run the country," in the sense of shutting down the investigation? Notionally, yeah. But in the best and non-partisan circumstances, this would have been hard to figure out when to end the investigation.
ReplyDelete"Shut up and try to run the country," in the sense of just stop talking about it? I would respectfully submit that this sort of bad judgment related to a major job function is perfectly in bounds as an election topic of discussion.
I'm not sure which sense you mean.
Don't get me wrong-- this weakens Clinton as a candidate in my eyes, but it is a testament to the outright feebleness of her opposition that I can see my way through to holding my nose and overlooking it. But I'm not going to pretend I don't understand the objections, either-- not when I'm relying on my own professional experiences and judgment.
I somewhat agree with F-L Silver , in that I don't understand how they let her do this in the first place. I mean, did NO ONE in her entire entourage think to pipe up that hey, maybe this is a spectacularly bad idea and maybe we shouldn't do it?
ReplyDeleteSee the thing is, I get it entirely and in a way that doesn't even depend on politics, per se.
ReplyDeleteSmall-p politics, maybe, in the sense of how groups and bosses and underlings and bureaucracies interact, but not in the capital-P Partisan Politics sense.
I get it so viscerally I can't even explain it-- I try, and every time I try, I erase it because it boils down to, "That's how small-p politics works-- policy and procedure loses its force at the top of the pile."
I mean, that's why whistle-blowing is a thing, right?
I guess. But damn. I mean, I suppose there was some kind of advantage to doing it that way? Because yes, I get what you are saying about consequences lessening the higher up the ladder you go, but I assume there at least had to be a reason for her to even bother risking it.
ReplyDeleteI think it said somewhere that the Clintons might have wanted privacy control, or something? Considering how much they've been targeted since he ran for President, that wouldn't be surprising, really.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on how cynical and paranoid you are. If you're a rabid Republican, you start with the assumption that there was some nefarious pay for play deal with the Clinton Foundation and eventually sleaze your way down to the level of intentional treason, selling secrets, and other such Manchurian Candidate bullshit.
ReplyDeleteMy bet is that it was a self-fulfilling prophecy involving privacy and trying not to give anyone any opportunity for skullduggery. That's far more understandable, and even tragic. But.... my sympathy is rather limited, here, again based on just how many millions of tons of shit would fall on me if I pulled anything approaching that.
I mean, it's not zero because I can only imagine what having those insane slime-weasels trying to crawl up my shorts would be like. But it's not very high.