Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? There are three main issues here:
1. The Defense Department bans the use of Signal for everybody else. Why is that? Why is the Secretary exempt?
2. As we've seen it's pretty easy to add unauthorized people to what should be secure communication channels where classified information is shared; and
3. There are laws around the preservation of governmental records. Expiring Signal messages seems like it's intentionally meant to circumvent these legal requirements ie it's illegal.
We're only 100 days in. We've got 1200 more days of this.
Re: 1. If a team at work has a long-standing policy implemented by and applying only to that team and I come in as the new team lead, I can change that policy.
NB: I’m not arguing that this change in policy was done after a careful Chesterton’s Fence analysis and weighing of all relevant factors, but it would seem stranger if a new leader couldn’t change any policies than if they can.
The implication is that either he doesnt care, or he does. So I guess he does. I just didn't get the vibe that he wanted Hillary to be held accountable for her emails.
Huh? I am still here and I am still annoyed by both. If anything, people who opposed 'but her emails' crowd to sufficiently penalize Hillary, made the current situation possible to begin with.
edit: To the lazy down voters. Address the 'my side never does anything wrong' issue and I might concede.
> Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now.
Under what basis should one have "locked her up"? All legal experts agree that there was no crime committed which could result in a prison sentence. This is specifically because none of the emails were classified.
She bypassed the requirement to communicate with all her contacts through secure and auditable channels (things people accuse the Trump admin of now doing), including foreign diplomats, by giving them her private email, which was effectively an email server stored under her desk, in simple SMTP, not SMTPS, which means all hostile entities could hack into it. When caught, she deleted the 19,000 emails and wasn’t sued for destruction of evidence.
That “all” of your legal experts (all 100% of them) found that perfectly legal is non sequitur: As a Secretary of State, practically her whole life can be used as ransom to make her do things contrary to state interests; and as a Secretary of State, she’s even responsible for making her subordinates set up the security rules to make it physically impossible to do what she did, if not legally impossible. She should not only have known, but she should have set up the rules for others.
Sounds like 100% of your legal experts may have been accessory to a scheme. Maybe she abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit, maybe the law has a hole, maybe everyone is lying because they’re afraid saying she cheated would benefit Trump, maybe anything else.
I’m genuinely interested in understanding if the story was wrong; But I’m not interested in understanding whether your take on the low importance of just a few emails from just a basic secretary, “nah don’t worry it’s just emails with her friends, she can have a private life”. No she can’t?
Why in the world would she be generally obligated to provide her personal/private emails to the government or public? It seems bizarre to suggest otherwise.
Because she’s at a position where she can be blackmailed and is holding a lot of the US secrets. There is no privacy when you run for high public positions.
You're demanding a standard of radical transparency for government officials that isn't supported by the law and has never been applied before or since.
It seems to be based on a presumption of guilt, which is a pretty severe departure from common principles of law and justice.
If you're sincere, I suppose you've been demanding that current members of the executive in leadership positions make all their personal communications public too?
The laws around this all generally exempt personal communications. You're Presuming people guilty is also not grounded in law.
Assuming I drop all pretense of wanting elected official to be auditable by “We the People”,
They complain about government officials using Telegram or Signal to communicate. Do you agree that they argue on the same line as me, just opposite clan, dismissing their own faults and pointing at others like it’s never been done before?
> Sounds like locking her up for bypassing the governmental emails would have been a win, now.
This is getting stupid to bring up, but at least we've got a canonical long response to that with a proper legal analysis.
https://youtu.be/cw1tNTIEs-o
It seems like bad faith to be rabid about Clinton emails and silent about the use (and overwhelmingly sloppy use at that) of signal. Do you care about following security procedures or not?
It's also weird to see you seem to take so much pleasure in lashing out - how can you feel vindication thinking your opponents should have done something about emails but not have that same feeling now? How do you hold both views (and with such vitriol) at the same time?
The hypocrisy is why folks find it hard to take these complaints at face value since we show time and time again that they appear more "my team should win the game" than anything consistent and built on principles.
I'm struggling to not write more details here but generally I think the whataboutism and completely ignoring degree is absurd. I remember when the big complaints about Obama were wearing the wrong color suit, saluting with a coffee cup, and allowing a military strike on a us citizen actively working with Al queda. If you want to be convincing (you may not want this- if you just want to feel self righteous and vengeful then carry on) then I think a better path would be explaining why this current situation is a good thing (or at least the same level of bad as the things you hate).
> Do you care about following security procedures or not?
I care. Therefore she should have been jailed, and the world comes back to its correct order. Once she is, jail Trump all you want.
But it doesn’t work like that and you know it. It’s always “just do it to the opposite party” and close your eyes on your own.
After you jail Hillary:
- Repel Title IX. It’s an incorrect regulation.
- Revert the 2020 vote,
- Publish the stats about women in STEM and black criminality,
Then all is transparent and we can have a working democracy again. What I’m saying is: You didn’t do it, and now you have a dysfunctional democracy. But you have to suffer it through to understand the evil of manipulating the country, so that you’ll want to do it right the next time.
1. The Defense Department bans the use of Signal for everybody else. Why is that? Why is the Secretary exempt?
2. As we've seen it's pretty easy to add unauthorized people to what should be secure communication channels where classified information is shared; and
3. There are laws around the preservation of governmental records. Expiring Signal messages seems like it's intentionally meant to circumvent these legal requirements ie it's illegal.
We're only 100 days in. We've got 1200 more days of this.