Now, in pointing out that Caroline Kennedy also used a private server, we are saying that if some other dude drove an unregistered car then this unregistered car should not be impounded. That is the same hilarious argument that was used by Obama defenders for many of his shenanigans; “Bush did it too,” utterly abandoning logic by ignoring the premise that Obama was supposed to be different.
Whether or not there were any classified documents on the server is pretty much irrelevant, the problem is the private server itself, and no one denies that she was using a private server exclusively, Hillary included.
The requirement for using a government server is to provide an official record of government communication and to assure that no one can tamper with that record. Hillary cheerfully admits that she bypassed that recordkeeping and that she tampered on a massive basis with the records that she kept on her private server.
Classified materiel be damned, how can we pretend that what she did in, to repeat, bypassing official records requirements and massively tampering with the records she kept privately is not a huge problem?
If not a legal problem, it is a massive problem with respect to transparency and trust.
Hillary threw up this smokescreen about classified material herself and quite deliberately by, when challenged about using a private server, dodging the actual question and saying that the server contained no classified material, creating a conversation and a controversy that would be at best difficult and possibly impossible to prove. This is her style. This is what she does.
And it worked because no one is talking about the private server itself. We are all arguing about
The content does matter, but it's secondary to the fact that the private server existed in the first place. If that didn't exist, then the content is irrelevant TO THAT DISCISSION.
ReplyDeleteNot to say a DoS server would have been any more secure (who knows), but then any leaks would not have been HER fault (or the person setting up said server). My head is spinning, because this may be a circular argument. Jayhawk's point is well taken.
It's like when Mr. Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a felony in any court. The Dems made it all about an extramarital affair and bad behavior (which it certainly was, but not criminal), instead of perjury and obstruction of justice.
This is the way the Clintons operate. I do not like them for this reason at least.