Regarding Classified State Dept. Documents and Candidate Clinton

[MineralMan]

Much is being made of Hillary Clinton using a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. The Republicans are doing the majority of the attacks, but there are also attacks from some Democrats. Some of those same Democrats celebrated wildly, oddly enough, when thousands of classified or sensitive State Department cables were leaked to Wikileaks.

Now, there is zero evidence that any of Hillary Clinton's emails from and to her private server were ever made public, either by leaks or hacking. There is ample evidence, however, that those State Department cables were stolen and leaked to Wikileaks, which published many of them worldwide. We all know that story and how many think that was a wonderful thing to have happened.

The Wikileaks publication of classified memos and other documents is a matter for widespread celebration, in print and on the Internet, by some Democrats, but somehow, the non-leak of emails stored on a private server maintained by Hillary Clinton is a matter deserving serious attacks on Hillary Clinton by those same Democrats. The Republicans, too, are attacking Clinton for the same use of a private email server.

I find it ironic that the leak of one large set of classified and sensitive documents from the State Department is celebrated by some, while emails that were never leaked or compromised is a reason to attack a leading Democratic Candidate for President by the same people who celebrate the other. Ironic and quite puzzling, really.

Lots of things about this year's early primary campaigning seems ironic and puzzling to me, somehow.

[JaneyVee]

1. Snowden's a hero for hacking govt computers, but...

Why didn't Hillary use govt servers?!

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. Ironic. Her private server

appears to have been more secure than the government's system. And yet, she is deemed culpable, even though none of what was there was publicly revealed until it was demanded by Congress.

The celebration over the leaked cables was remarkable. Even more remarkable are the attacks on Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that nothing sensitive was leaked from her server.

The irony is significant, I think, in view of the current Presidential primary race. I suppose that if Julian Assange were a US Citizen and ran for President, he'd be quite popular right now. Or maybe Glenn Greenwald would be a better choice of candidate. He is a US Citizen, I believe.

Uff da! It is, indeed, crazy season.

[MineralMan]

3. Incidentally, the leaked cables weren't from Snowden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

[TwilightGardener]

4. A smart country wouldn't make public that they gained access to the SOS's private email.

China didn't announce it had gained access to my husband's security clearance paperwork, and that of millions of others. That hack went on for more than a year.

[marble falls]

5. Because Hillary's "leaks" weren't made in the interest of public knowledge?

[MineralMan]

6. Yeah, right...

Whatever you say. The irony still is strong. That you're not seeing it is telling.

[jeff47]

7. It's not about leaks. It's about poor judgement.

Someone takes a document that Manning leaked, and emails it to Clinton. That's a security breach. The document is still classified, and she stored it on an unclassified system. Since she has a security clearance, she can not do that.

She could not be prosecuted for it, because it does not break federal law. What it does break is several executive orders regarding the handling of classified information. The worst punishment she could have faced for it was taking away her security clearance and destruction of the server. Since she no longer has a clearance, that is mostly moot.

Do you really think it is good for a candidate to get down into the weeds about executive orders versus laws when defending herself about "national secrets"?

This server is a massive minefield. We are taking a stroll through it. It is possible we will walk through unscathed. That does not mean our stroll is a good idea.

[JoePhilly]

8. How exactly did Hillary get down in the weeds here?

This reminds me of the IRS scandal ... no conservative group was denied tax exempt status ... so nothing actually happened, but its a BIG BIG DEAL, or something.

And as MM points out ... there is this terrible email scandal, in which once again, nothing actually happened. Nothing was leaked. No secrets lost.

Perhaps if you could show that there were in fact some significant national secrets that got out, then maybe you'd have something ... although even then, let's assume that Snowden or Manning got the leak ... you'd probably be cheering it.

[jeff47]

9. Defense against attacks would require it.

Republican Super-PAC Accusation in the general election: "This classified document was stored on Clinton's sever. That is against 'the rules'". Heavy implication that she broke the law without actually saying it. "All sorts of evil people could have read our secrets!!" Show pictures of Kim Jong-Un and ISIS fighters here.

Now, how do defend against that without getting into the weeds about the handling of classified information?

Perhaps if you could show that there were in fact some significant national secrets that got out, then maybe you'd have something

Because accusations during a political campaign must be based in reality to work?

[MineralMan]

10. Truth doesn't matter when stakes are high

in politics. Look at what the NYT published about this. Wrong, but they don't care and corrections don't make as much news. Truth no longer matters during presidential races. Agendas are the only things that matter.

It's going to be an ugly election.

[Fumesucker]

11. In sports terminology it's an unforced error on Clinton's part

No one could possibly have predicted that running the SoS email out of her utility room would cause Republicans to pitch yet another fit about Hillary when the practice inevitably became public, least of all Hillary Clinton.

Evidently we are dealing with all this particular incidence of stupidity because Hillary "didn't want to carry two phones", was it really worth the amount of drama for one of her aides to travel a few ounces lighter?