That's an interesting read, but has plenty of holes and is a little slanted. Lipson is a partisan so I didn't expect him to actually go into the actual details of the overall issue. I think the
article that was posted in this thread earlier is a little better and provides a little more information. Still not enough, and not enough of an explanation for people to understand the actual issues with the server and email files.
The issue here is data classification and handling standards, and when the data was classified to a given level. The government saying that there were 22 emails with material requiring classification does not mean that at the time of transmission or reception that the data was classified as such. This is important to understand and whether Clinton did anything that was illegal. The quote I find most interesting is "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," which means the information did not have a classification standard at the time and there were no specific handling requirements on the data at that time. Since the discovery the information has become sensitive and had been classified as such, but when the information was first disseminated it did not face any handling restrictions.
Another thing in this article that gave me pause was the fact that the Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus were to investigate further. These are the guys that should have been all over this initially. They probably would have been the ones that would have come in and done the review of the email server to see if it was secure and compliant with government standards. If there was a problem they would have been obligated to report it to the FBI.
All of this stuff about the email server being insecure is questionable as well. I would like to know what aspects of the server they are claiming to be insecure? Was it the configuration? Was it the physical location? What was it that deemed it insecure? I know of plenty of government servers that are less secure than your wireless access point in your home. I also know of plenty of individual's home networks that are as close to impenetrable as they come. Location does not automatically make a system insecure and neither does ownership. I would like to see more details on this to truly understand if there was a security breach or if this is a narrative that has developed because of misinformation in the mediasphere. If there was any impropriety the BDS or BIR are obligated to inform the FBI and they would secure the system and take it to their facilities for forensic examination.
A big thing that people also need to understand is the mechanisms in the Freedom of Information Act and the limitations that live within that act. When using the FOI you have to be very specific what you are looking for. You cannot cast a wide net and go fishing. There are very specific
restrictions that applicants have to understand.
One of the limitations not identified in the link is the right to client privilege. This might come into play in this discussion, depending on who was included in the email threads in questions. Depending on the request, and again, you must be specific in what you ask for, the information you receive may be highly redacted, that is, if you receive anything at all. A lot of exemptions apply to the information that could reside in State Department email, regardless of whether they were transmitted through a government or private server. Also, gaining access to a private server is very difficult to do. Private interests are not subject to a FOI request. You can go through legal means to try and access data on a private system, but FOI really only applies to public systems.
Finally, the money quote from this piece is this. "Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws."
The last thing worth mentioning, and plays a huge role in deciding the ethics of this whole mess, on both sides, are the concept of transparency. Government employees are supposed to maintain their email on a government server so it can be reviewed as a complete data set. As a public employee you are accountable to the people and having a holistic store that maintains all of your communications and data is expected, and a requirement by many departments or agencies. This is because of the oversight requirement for many of these bodies. When staff use private systems it compromises the holistic data store and makes oversight difficult to potentially impossible.
Speaking as the completely unbiased and impartial individual that you are? I mean, there is no slanted language or anything in your statement. Couldn't be that you have an unhinged hatred for the Clintons, and that is preventing you from seeing the other candidates as they are? I know I don't like Hillary Clinton in any shape or form, and am hoping Sanders gets the nomination, but given the choices available from the Republican side of things, Clinton is the only viable candidate if she earns the nomination. I mean, just compare resumes.
What do we know about the Clintons that make them any worse than Trump? Hell, Trump is a fast friend with the Clintons.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...clinton-119071
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/bi...mp-he-supporte
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...mps-2005-wedd/
This is too easy. "I would not want America led by such a ruthless, cold, calculating liar such as Mr. Trump. The record speaks for itself. He has done nothing to deserve the Presidency, but clearly feels it is his inheritance."
What exactly has Trump done to hold such a high moral standard in your eyes?