...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.
Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.
I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.
So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.
But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.
If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.
If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.
As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.
Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!
Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!
Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.
It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.
My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.
From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.
If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.
But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.