Saturday, September 3, 2016

Clinton Foundation Provides Over Half the World's AIDS Medicine, but Hillary's a Bad Person!

If you've been wading through the recent "revelations" about the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's emails, it becomes even more apparent that the scandals there are few to none, and yet...

DC press corps to each other: Hillary won't hold a press conference,
so let's fuck her up but good. (You have a better explanation?)

It's hard to figure why the press just can't let up on Hillary Clinton even though most reporting actually proves she was doing it by the book or better with both her emails and the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during her tenure there.
Thanks to the publishing of these investigations—most of which took many months of dogged effort to produce—we now have a tremendous amount of granular information about the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department and with the federal government generally. In virtually every case we know of, it’s clear that Hillary and her staff behaved appropriately.
Yet instead of accepting the evidence of their own investigations, much of the mainstream media expresses the attitude that these are still wide open questions. In its recent lead editorial calling for the Clintons to cut their ties to the Foundation immediately (the Clintons have said they’ll do so if she wins), The New York Times concedes that the latest batch of emails does not “so far” show that Hillary gave any special favors to Clinton donors while at state. On the cable shows, even the few journalists who acknowledge the lack of any evidence that Hillary and her staff did anything untoward feel the need to insist that the next batch of emails could prove otherwise.
Yes, there's that business with the private server, but the recent release of her FBI investigation docs shows that it wasn't the private server that defined the problems:
Career State Officials Were Among Those Who Sent Information Later Deemed Classified That Were Received By Clinton. According to the FBI’s memorandum, U.S. government employees “responsible for initiating classified e-mail chains included State Civil Service employees, Foreign Service employees, Senior Executive Service Employees, Presidential employees, and non-State elected officials.” Those emails were sent on unclassified systems either directly or indirectly to Clinton. Even if Clinton had not had a personal server, there would still have been a dispute over the classification of the materials.
First, experts say, there's no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official "" account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they're generally seen as administrative matters.
I know that if your a Clinton skeptic, you answer might be, "Sure, but she had a private server!" What this makes clear, though, is that if she used a email address, these classified email chains would still have spent all their lives on unsecured systems, having originated from the unsecured email systems of, in many cases, career governmental officials.

Also, the way email was handled at State during her tenure was consistent with how it was handled in the prior two administrations:
Associated Press: "The Transmission Of Now-Classified Information Across Hillary Rodham Clinton's Private Email Is Consistent" With Past State Department Practice. As reported by the AP, information that may become classified later is frequently shared on unclassified State Department systems, a routine occurrence that predated the current administration. Not only was Clinton's "transmission of now-classified information" over an unclassified system "consistent" with agency practice, according to experts, concerns arise equally whether the retroactively classified information is "carried over the government system or a private server."

Got that? It has nothing particular to do with her private server, which, by all accounts, was pretty damned secure.

How secure? You say, "But Comey said we don't know if it was ever hacked!" But wait. It wasn't about the server, it was about the devices she used to access the server. The LA Times:
Agents, however, said it was difficult to determine whether accounts were compromised because they were not able to examine the 11 mobile devices used by Clinton during her time as secretary of State or some other computers and components. The devices were either destroyed or could not be tracked down.
Yes, older Blackberries were destroyed when no longer used. Nefarious or prudent?

Let's let Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Ian Millhiser have the last word:

No comments:

Post a Comment