Case in point: Hillary. The emails, the servers, it's all proven, but thanks to some voodoo along with a splash of "Well, she may be a crook but she's OUR crook" and she's a viable candidate.
She scraped and hosted her own email. It may be a terrible security practice, and plausibly done to avoid archival and auditing requirements. It hardly rises to the level of "crook" though.
I mean, the Nixon White House was literally breaking and entering into the offices of their political enemies. You really don't see a moral distinction here?
One wonders why she deleted emails that under US law for someone in her position weren't allowed to be deleted, around the time she was asked to hand over her records.
There is no technical requirement to do so. The only reason I can think of that makes sense is that there was information there that she didn't want to share with others. And given these included professional emails that were part of an ongoing investigation, I'm frankly surprised that it isn't seen as a deal-breaking issue for even her candidacy.
Obviously it's not the same as Watergate actions of breaking into offices. The point is that people are hinting at Clinton deleting emails to cover something up.
I mean 'plausibly done to avoid auditing'... what does that even mean? What does that imply to you?
BrandonMarc above was quite clearly comparing Clinton and Nixon directly, even as far as using the "[I am not a] crook" appelative. That's what I was responding to. If you want to assert a (sigh...) "cover-up" that's a rather different argument.
But in general, if you want to do that you need to start from some kind of hypothesis about what is being covered up (ex: "Some guys were arrested at the Watergate Towers, did the president order the break-in?") and not something that looks like clumsy scandal-proofing to the non-partisan.
The "I am not a crook" phrase (however it was stated) actually wasn't on my mind.
There are a large number of Hillary supporters that, even if they are shown proof of criminal activity, simply won't care. Not a bit. Thus their thought process is, "Sure, she's a crook ... but all politicians are crooks, and she's on OUR team, so she gets our support."
A moral distinction between two lying, deceitful crooks? I really don't see a difference, no.
Well, I suppose Hillary is a lot smarter about avoiding getting caught ... except even that doesn't fit. She's been caught numerous times, like her husband (the nickname "Slick Willie" came about for a reason, after all). But when she gets caught, various powers that be somehow make it a non-issue.
> And that's equivalent to felony robbery in your mind
It's far worse. Without accountability structures, the rule of law simply vanishes. Her attempt to avoid accountability/transparency was simply an attempt to avoid the rule of law and replace it with her own prerogatives.
If our leaders do not themselves respect the rule of law, how can we hope for any kind of just society? There are lots of societies run by warlords who simply take and hold power with no accountability. Our system is fundamentally different by design, or at least, it should be, even though some warlords are well-respected by the people they rule.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
> (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
> (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
> (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
I'm not aware of whether she had stuff that was classified, but as Secretary of State I'd say most of her communications would be somewhat confidential.
If not black-letter illegal, it's still extremely dodgy, and dangerous. Remember when Palin got hacked?
If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately. Yes, some people do bend the rules, and get away with it, but only if there's nothing they handled that would cause any issues if it were posted on the internet.
There's certainly plenty of wiggle room when it comes to "unauthorized removal" considering her position. It'll be interesting to see how any investigation plays out, but I would bet nothing comes of it.
>If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately.
Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function.
> Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function.
Sounds like the Nixon defense. Though at least Clinton wasn't (apparently) acting out of malice. She might have just been a bit paranoid about security, incompetent (at IT security - and allowed yes-men to get her set up), or somehow needed a level of convenience that she couldn't get from the official system.
It's even possible the official system was suspected of being compromised (if it was, we might not know), and she could get a safer system.
It's nothing like the Nixon defense. The law clearly states the criteria of "unauthorized removal". But who authorizes the fucking Secretary of State on her need to use classified information externally? The president? You don't think he would back her in this?
I remember people of a certain bent celebrating the fact that she got hacked, completely oblivious to the concept that something malicious / illegal had taken place.
And who does the authorizing? Because if it isn't the Secretary of State, it's going to be the President, and he is not going to stick a dagger in Clinton's back at this point, not after her being a most loyal and effective lieutenant.
The statute may seem like it's drafted that way, but it's not up to her (or her boss, i.e., the Pres) discretion. There are rules and regulations that determine what is and is not authorized "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material." See, for example, Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintone...).
