New Yorker: A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL

[IdaBriggs]

A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL, The New Yorker, May 28, 2016
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-very-clinton-e-mail-scandal
(snip)

Like most political scandals, the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office, but how Clinton responded to the initial accusations. Clinton repeatedly maintained that the use of her private e-mail system was normal and approved by the relevant officials at the State Department. The inspector general says that’s not the case.

This Clinton scandal, like many others, including the one involving the health-care task force, has its roots in Clinton’s penchant for shielding her government work from public scrutiny. The Clintons are hardly unique in this regard. As the inner workings of government have increasingly been pried open by public laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, by the investigative machinery of Congress, and by a new generation of whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden, government officials have responded in kind. “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton wrote to a top aide who recommended that she begin using a State Department e-mail account.

The fact that Clinton did not fully coöperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model of transparency, but unfortunately there’s little evidence that the politicians who are the most incensed about the issue are also interested in using the episode as a way to strengthen the federal government’s woefully inadequate commitment to open-records laws.

So this scandal is like so many that have dogged the Clintons: while it’s more molehill than mountain, it does genuinely revolve around a serious issue (Clinton’s commitment to transparency); her initial response was less than forthcoming; and the critics exaggerating the degree of wrongdoing have demonstrated more interest in damaging her politically than fixing the underlying government-wide problem that the e-mail imbroglio has revealed. Plus ça change . . . .

Finally, the real danger to Clinton is not about the e-mail system itself, it’s about whether she or her aides violated any laws regarding the safekeeping of classified information. That investigation was beyond the scope of the State Department’s inspector general, and is being looked into by the F.B.I. We’ll know soon enough if it’s a real or a fake scandal.

Nope. Not going away soon.

[YouDig]

1. Did you even read the article? "More molehill than mountain"

I guess it's too much effort for Berners to read anything that's not caps locked.

[thesquanderer]

34. I think you missed the point of the article.

Even the next part of what you quote spells it out: "So this scandal is like so many that have dogged the Clintons: while it’s more molehill than mountain, it does genuinely revolve around a serious issue (Clinton’s commitment to transparency)" - which was a summing up of earlier points, i.e. "the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office, but how Clinton responded to the initial accusations" and "This Clinton scandal, like many others...has its roots in Clinton’s penchant for shielding her government work from public scrutiny. "

The point of the article, what makes it "a very Clinton scandal," is that the way she has dealt with it is worse than the actual incident. The fact that the underlying issue is "more molehill than mountain" further makes that point, that her own actions have a tendency to turn smaller scandals into bigger ones.

Though as the article also points out, the import of the underlying scandal is still not fully known: "Finally, the real danger to Clinton is not about the e-mail system itself, it’s about whether she or her aides violated any laws regarding the safekeeping of classified information. That investigation was beyond the scope of the State Department’s inspector general, and is being looked into by the F.B.I. We’ll know soon enough if it’s a real or a fake scandal."

[annavictorious]

2. Ooh...another Clinton "scandal"

Does Ken Starr know about this?

[IdaBriggs]

5. Where have you been for the last few months?

Same story, different source. And the Attorney General's name is Loretta Lynch, the FBI Director's name is James Comey (who was involved in Whitewater investigation back in the day), and the Inspector Generals are Steve Linick at State and David Buckley (CIA).

Those are the law enforcement players you need to remember. You're welcome.

[Tarc]

3. *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*

[Bleacher Creature]

6. She's going to be a great leader.

Fortunately, 3 million more than "everyone" knows it.

[rhett o rick]

10. The Oligarchy with Goldman-Sach, Citibank and the Koch Bros all agree with you.

Also Richard Perle and the neocons also agree with you and the Prisons For Profits, Monsanto, Walmart, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, also agree with you. Wall Street agrees with you. You are in some good company.

Your 3 million is a lie and typical of the Clinton-Sachs campaign.

By the way Black Lives Matters doesn't agree with you:

“Here's the truth: the Clinton legacy has left our prisons bursting at the seams. Real lives have been destroyed as a result. It is an indisputable fact that millions of Black people were locked up for drug crimes and provided the bodies for the expansion of the prison industry.

Those that side with Clinton-Sachs are siding with the corporate oligarchy and turning their backs on the working class and the poor.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Of what? The prison's Inmate's Council?

Hell, she'd probably have to rig the election to manage that.

[basselope]

36. She has no path to becoming leader.

[B Calm]

27. Her campaign on being strong on national security was flushed down the toilet.

[onecaliberal]

8. Wrong. She was required to turn over ALL communication which she didn't do.

In fact she failed to do so until practically ordered. Then she still deleted 30,000 emails

[IdaBriggs]

9. I agree with you. I think each organization focuses on their own area

of interest. The upcoming political cartoons are going to be ... Interesting.

[MonkeyChamp]

11. Email thing overblown - but a real black eye

HRC purposefully flaunted State Dept rules very intentionally. She wanted convenience - understandable - and privacy - understandable.
But in my opinion HRC set this email server up to skirt FOIA and skirt Hatch Act provisions. But, she can never admit this. So, her answers never quite add up.
Do I care that much? Not really.

[IdaBriggs]

12. Would you care if Republicans were doing the same thing? nt

[MonkeyChamp]

17. Great point

I probably would. Though I see a lot of this email stuff being about skirting campaigning rules. I support Bernie because I think he's a "true believer" in campaign finance reform. HRC, I don't think so.
If we had radical election reform - public funding, free media access, a shortened election cycle by law - a ;ot of this nonsense would go away. Oh, and we'd also have gov't that served actual Voters better.

[onecaliberal]

16. Putting us in the position to be blackmailed by foreign government is a big fucking deal

Jeopardizing nation security is a big fucking deal. This is NOT overblown by any measure it has been greatly downplayed. If you had done what she did your ass would be in prison for decades.

[lmbradford]

22. OK

If this doesn't bother you, please set up an unsecured server in your neighbor's home, preferable one who has a lot of servants, parties, and other people in and out a lot, then put your ss# and bank account information on the server and lastly, make sure there is no password.

Now think about that and instead of you it is the names of secret agents and military missions that are top secret.

Understand now?

[MonkeyChamp]

23. Need more facts

I need more info on how weak her security truly was.

[99Forever]

25. How weak?

There was ZERO security. Not even a password.

Jesus Effen Cripes, the lame gets lamer.

[LAS14]

13. So she made some mistakes. So what!

How is it that you think this trumps Trump's behavior????

One of the things that keeps me on Hillary’s side is her sense for complexity. Her unwillingness to see the world in black and white. So what if, under the artificial pressure of a debate, she said “anytime anywhere” and something about being “transparent.” Then later realized that real life required different choices. Why in the world would we hold someone to such a standard of perfection? If we did, we’d just get a fake image of a candidate.

So I’m absolutely fine with Hillary, slip ups and all. Give me someone who’s smart and has a capacity to deal with complexity. It’s a scary thought that we might get someone who can’t in the white house.

Enough with trying to defend every tiny thing she says or does. She's human! A great human!! Go, Hillary!!

[IdaBriggs]

14. Out of curiosity, what did you think of Bill accepting a $500,000

check from the Libyan Foreign Minister two days after the Benghazi murders?

[polly7]

20. Nobody every answers these questions, Ida.

It's very strange.

[IdaBriggs]

21. Truth. The more you know, the less you like her.

I thought she was a great Secretary of State, up until I learned more about Libya, Hondorus, Blumenthal and her dang email. I was impressed with the Clinton Foundation, up until I learned about the fraud in Haiti, the foreign contributions, and the pay-to-play with State.

It's sad, but she's horrible -- an absolute embarrassment of bad decisions.

[libtodeath]

19. What if her slip ups give us trump?

[LiberalElite]

24. EZ - they'll blame it on Sanders supporters nt

[LiberalArkie]

15. K&R

[AzDar]

18. She's A LIAR... She should stop embarrassing the Party and the Country and drop OUT.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IdaBriggs.

[Meteor Man]

28. Factcheck article

Let's not keep our head in the sand any longer:

Hackers attempted to access Clinton’s server on Jan. 9, 2011, and a phishing email message was sent to Clinton on May 13, 2011, that contained a suspicious link. Both attempted breaches should have been reported. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department,” the report said.

So someone is trying to hack a computer with classified info, but you don't report the hack to the IT department?


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/#sharethefacts

[tazkcmo]

29. It even starts with denial.

"Like most political scandals, the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office..."

This is about what she did in office and afterwards. Her poor judgment spans her entire career and includes her tenure as Sec of State.

Then there's this:
"We’ll know soon enough if it’s a real or a fake scandal."

It's real as evidenced by every major media outlet carrying this story, all the talking heads talking about this story, the blogosphere talking about this story, etc. Sec Clinton started her campaign with trust issues and has only reinforced what many in America have found lacking in her for the past 25 years: Honesty, credibility and transparency. I will add accountable to that list, too.

[Karma13612]

37. Each day reveals more and more about Clinton,

and reinforces what I have been suspicious about right from the start.

Well, all I can say is, I know what Bernie Sanders feels like when people don't listen to him.

When people ridicule you for pointing out issues.

When people scoff off the suspicions.

yea, Clinton is not trustworthy and loves to skirt just inside the rules, but breaking the spirit of the rules.

Makes me sick to my stomach that we are looking down the barrel of her nomination.

And then a $hit$torm at the convention.

Bernie is a gift on a silver platter. And we still can't get it right.

The rest of the world including our close neighbors, the Canadians, are having a regular laugh-a-thon at our expense.

I know who can get the country back in the right direction for generations to come. But, I will have to live out my days in a country devoid of reason and logic, with a failing economy, poor healthcare access, a military stretched thin with endless wars, and young people who can't get a decent education and jobs.

For those of you who don't see this in our future are either living in a dream world, or don't know what it's like to live on less than $50K a year. A lot of people live on very little and live paycheck to paycheck. For those people making decent salaries where you can afford to eat out several times a month, have fancy clothes and a blossoming 401K, remember that we aren't all living like this. You don't worry about Hillary wanting to 'tweak' Medicare and SS. You don't worry that she wants to preserve the ACA instead of fighting for single payer/Medicare for all. You just don't get it because you are much more financially secure, buffered from these threats to social safety nets.

sorry, just fed up with the lack of empathy in this country for how "the other half lives".