While no scandal, no matter how big or small, seems to stick to "Teflon" Don Trump, Hillary Clinton has not had that same ability. The Clinton email scandal will not go away, no matter how much we're all, like Bernie Sanders said eight (!) months ago, "sick of hearing about [her] damn emails." A new report by internal investigators has come out, and this gives a good chance to take a renewed look at the scandal.
The email scandal came about as a result of the investigation into an entirely different "scandal," if you could call it that. The eighth (!) Congressional committee looking into the actions of Benghazi were not making much headway until they discovered that Clinton had used a private email and server while she served as Secretary of State. Long story short, she eventually had to release her emails from that server, and her and her attorneys determined which were "personal" and which were "work-related." The personal ones were deleted, though the server was given to investigators. The State Department has released almost all of those roughly 31,000 work-related emails to the public.
Note I said "almost." As of now, roughly 22 of those emails have been deemed "top secret" and others have earned some sort of "classified" designation. But Clinton has been proven correct when she states that the emails were not "classified" at the time she sent them. These have been designated classified and top secret after the fact. Further, it's hard to build a criminal case for distributing classified content when the prosecutors would have to prove both knowledge (She knew these were classified, which is hard to prove in this case) and intent.
She's also right that Secretaries of State past had also had similar set-ups. The most recent report showed that Colin Powell did ALL of his email correspondence on a private, commercial email account. There was a consistency in the Department of State to skirt record keeping, have leaders avoid using government emails, and so on.
Quick pair of asides: First, while we can't say her private email and server were never hacked, it is true to say that the State Department has been — a couple of times. Second, I've only seen one possible explanation as to the "why do all this?" of a private server/email: the Clinton family has always had their privacy under intense scrutiny, whether Whitewater or Lewinsky, and a natural reaction is to try to wall yourself off. I can see that.
However, just because others in your position have done something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Also, she had sent out an email to other State leaders reminding them to do official business on government servers for record-keeping purposes. She's admitted that having a personal server/email was a mistake, but that's kind of like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar and then apologizing. It was wrong and she knew it was wrong.
The recent report found that Clinton "did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." She broke policy -- not a law, but a policy. That's not criminal. If this were any organization other than federal government, it would be handled internally. Slap on the wrist, undergo some training, don't do it again, get back to work. That's the scope that I think we have lost here -- unless some criminal charges come down the pike, this is ultimately a minor issue.
However, it has stuck around, and I think it's for two reasons: expectations and the allure of the unknown. Donald Trump has been found to be a prolific liar, has been inconsistent about darn near everything, has very few actual policy positions, and has been dismissive when these concerns are brought up. But we don't expect Donald Trump to tell the truth — he's Donald Trump! Perhaps one of the reasons this sticks to Clinton is because, as the more serious candidate, we expect more out of her, but find that she's no angel. The second reason is something I used to say to people when I was a reporter: If answers aren't forthcoming, people tend to assume. We don't know for sure that the emails Clinton deemed personal actually were. Those that trust her believe they are. But those who don't trust her don't know one way or the other, so they make assumptions. This is the trust portion
So what does it all mean? I liked this line from a CNN opinion writer (who was against Clinton): "...the reality appears to be nuanced in a way that is satisfying to neither side." I like to summarize the case as a twist on his conclusion: Clinton didn't break the law, but she didn't do the right thing, either.
Summary Judgments
Here's an incredible story by Maggie Koerth-Baker, about Moore, Okla. Why does it seem to get hit by so many large tornadoes? Is there something to that? She does a lot of good research, mixing both anecdotal and scientific evidence. Great story. • • • I've been stuck working from home for the last two days because I've had the kids' hand, foot and mouth disease. It's too bad Halloween isn't closer. I could go as Dalmatian Man or Leprosy Patient. (Not really... but it's kind of how this makes you feel.)
No comments:
Post a Comment