Tuesday, February 23, 2016
The private server and "our enemies"
Did Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server as Sec. of State harm national security? Who knows, but it's not something I lie awake at night worrying about. It is, however (and needless to say), a political talking point for Republicans, as was underlined again this morning when a Repub senator, questioning John Kerry at a hearing, asserted that we must assume that all those e-mails are now in the hands of "our enemies" (direct quote). I'm sure our enemies have not been having fun wading through the e-mail traffic, most of which must be boring, routine garbage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
LFC
I think you are missing the key point.
What she is accused of is a felony. I haven't been following closely but it seems, if the press reports are correct, a long tern action committed over time, with accomplices by someone who knew it was a crime. Not an illegal inadvertent failure to dot the I or cross the T.
-----------------
If I, or any other lowly government worker did a fraction of what she is accused of we would be looking at five to ten years. There would be no leniency because of alleged good motivation, worthy accomplishments, etc
Just because she is the wife of a former President, a former Senator, a leading political figure, an A-List person in highest of social circles, gives her no right to commit felonies.
The law is the same for her as any one else.
I have no doubt she signed off on the annual notices telling her employees about computer security.
If she maintains the right to ignore the law how can she expect her subordinates to follow the law? How can she impose punishment with a straight face?
The question is not will this effect the election, if she is guilty she or any one else, irregardless of party, is fundamentally unsuited for high office no matter what her politics.
Oh yes end of rant.
LFC
I think you are missing the key point.
What she is accused of is a felony. I haven't been following closely but it seems, if the press reports are correct, a long tern action committed over time, with accomplices by someone who knew it was a crime. Not an illegal inadvertent failure to dot the I or cross the T.
-----------------
If I, or any other lowly government worker did a fraction of what she is accused of we would be looking at five to ten years. There would be no leniency because of alleged good motivation, worthy accomplishments, etc
Just because she is the wife of a former President, a former Senator, a leading political figure, an A-List person in highest of social circles, gives her no right to commit felonies.
The law is the same for her as any one else.
I have no doubt she signed off on the annual notices telling her employees about computer security.
If she maintains the right to ignore the law how can she expect her subordinates to follow the law? How can she impose punishment with a straight face?
The question is not will this effect the election, if she is guilty she or any one else, irregardless of party, is fundamentally unsuited for high office no matter what her politics.
Oh yes end of rant.
LFC excuse the new word processor and Windows ten
"What she is accused of is a felony"
Well, she hasn't been charged with anything. But I don't pretend to know the legal technicalities here. She has said it was a mistake, iirc.
Hard to know what she is accused of. I worked in government. If a senior officer said "can I work at home?" and the security and IT areas said "sure, we'll fix you up with the same gear we gave the last few people" then you go ahead and use it. The Secretary is neither an IT expert nor a security expert. I have not seen anything that says she was told it was insecure or not to use it, and went ahead anyway. Is that the case?
I have not seen anything that says she was told it was insecure or not to use it, and went ahead anyway. Is that the case?
I don't know: I confess I tuned out the details of this whole thing a long time ago. There are apparently multiple (Republican-led, of course) congressional investigations ongoing.
Btw, on the topic of Sanders rather than Clinton, E. Loomis had a post at LGM saying Sanders is a New Deal Democrat, not a socialist. I didn't read the whole resulting comment thread, but prob. the best comment I saw in response was this by Steve Attewell. Not that I really want to get deeply into this here, tbh.
p.s. the point being that Loomis was confusing immediate policy proposals, on the one hand, with, on the other hand, use of a particular label (democratic socialist) to align oneself w a certain history and set of aspirations. Ok, enough of that, I think.
Back to the email server thing. ;)
1. LFC -- thanks for that link to the Steven Attewell comment to the Loomis post. LGM threads are so rough I never look at them (tho, fuck! CT ones are getting really bad too), and that was a great comment I had completely missed.
2. Re HRC and what she's "accused" of. She hasn't been charged with anything at all right? So in any meaningful sense, I don't see what's she supposed to be accused of at all.
Sorry about the obscenity, ps.
Well, I'm sure Republicans are accusing her of all kinds of things in this connection, but yes, she has not been charged w anything, i.e. no criminal charges have been brought. As investigations are ongoing, I'm sure some hope that charges will be brought, but in the context of a campaign I'm not sure it wd be feasible for a whole variety of reasons, even if it turns out there's something there, legally.
Re the CT thread just now, I must remind myself to ignore kidneystones, since he always gets the last word anyway.
No need to apologize for (mild, by internet standards) obscenities in comment threads here. Tiny readership, presumably all over 18 yrs old. Carry on. :)
Yeah, kidneystones is a disaster---I try not to read his comments. I'm much more pissed off at Bruce Wilder because I really would have expected better. My last comment on there was probably in bad taste, but I kind of couldn't help myself.
I think part of the problem (not sure this applies *fully* to B.Wilder, I'm speaking more generally, though I think it applies partly to him) is that some people had inflated expectations for Obama and didn't realize that he was basically only a little bit to HRC's left when he ran in '08 -- that little bit was enough for me to support him in the primaries in '08, but I never thought he was going to, esp not in 4 yrs, cure poverty, end outsourcing, rejuvenate the rustbelt and the coal belt, reverse the growth in income inequality, prosecute Wall St malefactors, etc. So I wasn't in a position to be let down very much. Whereas some people were very let down and had a severe reaction vs all 'conventional' politics and politicians. So, while tsk-tsk-ing at some of Trump's statements, these people are not willing to denounce him in an unambiguous, full-throated way b.c at least, in BW's words, Trump is "not a neoliberal." To which I reply: WTF, George Wallace was also "not a neoliberal".
P.s. I wrote the above before reading your latest comment at CT -- very good comment.
LFC -- Thanks. I completely agree with you re disappointment with Obama, etc. Except for a couple of areas (notably re civil liberties/persecution of whistleblowers he's been much worse than I would've expected), I was very much in the same position as you.
Kidneystones is the most stupid person I've come across , in any context , anywhere, ever.
Lfc, I agree 're reified ; )
Ronan,
I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek there -- but I do think it's an overused word these days esp. in some contemporary academic discourses. I'll leave it at that.
p.s. I've gotten terrible about not keeping up well with what's going on in the world outside the rather stupid (that word again) U.S. presidential race, but I did hear something v. brief on the news about elections in Ireland. And promptly forgot the substance (sigh).
pps Reading Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation. It's so short it's about the length of two long magazine articles, but I still haven't finished. (Too many other mundane things to do.)
@js.: yes, Obama has been worse than I wd have thought on whistleblowers. It's not been a very 'open' administration in that sense.
Lfc, I'll fill you in on the goings on in the irish election tomorrow, in my own peculiarly biased manner
ok thanks
(Writing this on a kindle so sorry for stilted, rushed nature)
Lfc, the same trends that are developing elsewhere. Undermining of established parties and rise of more ideologically divisive politics (at least superficially about ideology, arguably more than superficial). In Ireland it's happened with the left picking up "the protest vote" and no nativist right to speak of (primarily, I would guess, because irelands demographics are different than a lot of continental Europe/uks, ie although a good bit of immigration in the 00s, no long term sustained immigration and so less of the ethnonationalist politics that have developed in those countries. Also, though, because sinn Fein have picked up the pissed off working class vote, for want of a better term, and channelled that anger towards positive politics and away from hating on outgroups)
There's probably going to have to be another election after the main parties stop playing games positioning themselves to go back to the electorate. No need to get into the specifics of that,but the bigger question is whether this is a meaningful shift in irish politics or a passing bit of turbulence. I would say probably both (though a lot of historians/political scientists are saying it's a meaningful change) Sinn Fein are here to stay, whether the more radical left and independents (who are substantial factions)are is another question. I'd guess it depends what happens in the economy next. More gradual improvement and that part of the opposition could dissipate. Another crisis and it could grow. But I think the class divisions that are developing are real, and will become the most important divide in irish politics for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I tend to think this is mostly good, fwiw.
Thanks. My ignorance of contemp. Irish politics is close to total, I'm ashamed to say, so I need to go to some basic news coverage (BBC, Reuters, whatever) and get background and context for your remarks. (Which I'll try to do sometime in next few days).
Nothing to be ashamed of. Americans come from the strange position of having everyone pontificate on their politics and then get reprimanded for not returning the favour! No reason a person should know irish politics anymore than I would, for example, Swedish.
Post a Comment