The press and the e-mail brouhaha

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Let me preface my remarks by saying I have been fairly consistent in saying that using a private server and private e-mail address for all your correspondence, personal and government related and then retroactively separating them when your tenure is over was not a very good idea, especially in hindsight. But the press has inflated its importance beyond recognition.

I analogize the case against Hillary Clinton to a tripod with three legs. The three legs are

Leg one- What she was doing was a gross violation of existing policy. That leg is now broken:

"There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," the Justice Department's civil division attorneys wrote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/12/justice-dept-clinton-emails/72144988/

Leg two- She wiped ?, scrubbed her server. That leg is now broken:

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.


http://tinyurl.com/ncubsct

Leg 3 - Her use of a private e-mail server was not at worst negligent or questionable but criminally negligent or reckless. I expect that leg to crumble like the first two.

It would be nice for the press to admit that the story they have been using to flog Hillary Clinton for six straight months is falling apart.

[99Forever]

1. So...

... are you saying that this issue is permanently resolved and will never be a distraction from the real issues facing this Nation again?

Wonderful.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I said it is akin to a tripod. Two of the legs have been broken.

I said it is akin to a tripod. Two of the legs have been broken. I suspect the third leg will go the way of the first two.

Maybe the press will tire of it. So far there is no indication of that.

[99Forever]

5. So when...

.. can we expect this issue to not dog Hillary and stop distracting from getting things done?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I don't know, sir.

eom

[99Forever]

8. I keep hearing from Camp Hillary about how...

... she knows "how to get things done" and Sanders doesn't. Yet she can't seem to even get past this?

How am I to believe for a minute that she will be able to do what the Nation desperately needs, when she is likely to be like her husband before her, be tied up fighting personal battles of her own making?

[bigdarryl]

18. Hillary has NEVER said Sanders can't get things done

[99Forever]

19. Perhaps you can have Ms.Clinton pass that thought along...

... to some of her biggest fans here, as that tad bit of ridiculous stupidity has been repeated here ad nausium by them.

Thanks.

[Hortensis]

3. Expect the GOP to start flogging a new "scandal" for the press to run with.

Not that this one will be allowed to die, of course. Just that eventually new meat will be required to feed news cycle requirements.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Hillarys problem...

...is that she didn't get out front from the get-go. Instead she stalled, obfuscated, made untruthful statements (white lies, perhaps, but still untruths), and in general has acted like she's hiding something. She might be 100% clean, but if she's acting like she's hiding something people will conclude there's fire behind the smokescreen. It's just one more instance of Clintonesque shooting themselves in the foot. They instinctively lie and coverup when the truth would serve them better.

[Hortensis]

7. She did "it." It wasn't illegal or negligent, but she did it, and

that was no doubt part of why her enemies chose this item to swiftboat her with -- choosing it from a list they were considering of various things she did or did not do. When manufacturing scandal, truth is not needed, just sellability of the product, but a little kernel of truth can help both the salesmen sell and the buyers swallow.

But your point seems to be that Hillary's mishandling of this attack made it succeed. IMO, with the press biased against any woman candidate for the White House, and especially this one they've never been able to kill off in particular, there was NO chance Hillary could have somehow handled this "right."

No one's claiming she's perfect, or perfectly honest, but surely her attackers are far more dishonest and dishonorable?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I don't know if the coverage is sexist. But you might be right.

I don't know if the coverage is sexist. But you might be right. I do know the fact the press can't kill her off has made them apoplectic and the apoplexy can be seen in the coverage.

[Hortensis]

13. Sexism is not discussed by the MSM. Wonder why? I ran across the problem

of press bias in scholarly articles when I was trying to find out why the MSM were so antagonistic to Hllary. (What one earth did she DO?)

These scholarly articles typically refer to various scholarly studies of and books on the history of press coverage of women in the U.S that I have not read. Nevertheless the pattern of press bias is apparently so continuous over the last century, right up and into Hillary's era, and so well documented by researchers that it would be foolish to assume somehow it has just disappeared -- poof! Certainly many of the owners, executives, and directors and editors of our major media sources during the latter part of this era have not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I do think some of the criticism of HRC is misogynistic or latently misogynistic.

I do think some of the criticism of HRC is misogynistic or latently misogynistic, especially from frat boy trolls like Chris Cilizza or Dana Milbank.

Some of the criticism is based on her policy positions and that's fine.

And some of the criticism comes from the fact that some members of the press feel , rightly or wrongly, that she holds them in very low esteem.

[Hortensis]

16. Umhm. I criticize her policies myself, and she does hold them in low esteem!

[karynnj]

9. You ignore the only "leg" that might be real

That State Department records were suppose to be given to the State Department -- and for 2 years (and HRC's term as Sos) they weren't. This meant they were excluded from FOIA and Congressional inquiries. She is lucky that due to the current SD's negotiations she did return what her team said were all the work emails before this issue exploded. (Imagine if this came out because a Republican noticed the email address and would have made everything public when the State Department did not yet have anything from Clinton.)

Yes, I know that Powell used BOTH private email and his State.gov account - and no one has ever said that he insured the State Department got all his email. (In fact, they likely no longer exist and the State Department does not have copies.) However, arguing that others did the same thing really doesn't mean that nothing was wrong here.

I think a solution for Clinton is to admit - not just that she should not have mixed personal and work, but that what she did was wrong in terms of a transparent government with oversight. She could say that when she started at the State Department there were no clear guidelines, and she didn't consider the ramifications. She could ask that the SD IG's recommendations that they are now working to implement be made public. She should endorse either that or some alternative and say that she would as President, set those guidelines - day one - for all departments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. There are two statutes where she has some legal exposure.

There are two statutes where she has some legal exposure. That's the last leg. But for her to have true legal exposure she would have had to knowingly send or share classified information with someone without security clearance or to be reckless in her handling of classified information. What is in the record suggests she was concerned about security, discussed increasing security with her associates at State, and took precautions to protect known classified information.

As I said I don't think the private e-mail server and address was a good idea. I also don't think it was criminal and that the D O J will find that to be the case.

Also, I can not ignore the fact that the current FBI investigation began with a referral from the Benghazi Committee (R).

[karynnj]

12. Very few serious people have thought that there will be a legal issue that she will be charged with

What I am speaking is something that impacts whether she is seen as favoring honesty and integrity in government. Signing on to something that would insure openness and good record keeping in a Clinton administration could be a way to move beyond something that depicts her as secretive.

What is NOT AT ALL CLEAR is that she intended for the State Department to have all her work emails to insure an accurate historical record. It suggests she wanted to control that record.

The FBI investigation was recommended by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Your recommendations make absolute sense.

eom

[HereSince1628]

17. Unfortunately, that might not be true of other DOS employees

And the mess and expense of sorting all that out. That pretty often gets dismissed.

A really good leader is careful and doesn't forget to think and create circumstances that ensnare unwitting members of 'the crew'. A leader that say's shrugs that off with 'oops, in hindsight that wasn't a great decision' doesn't acknowledge the damage done to the underlings.

Now we taxpayers are having our money wasted as those who must take such things seriously pursue those underlings.

Their is a good chance one or more of them is going to be chewed on by the hounds chasing her.