WaPo Fact Checker Glenn Kessler reviews this statement by Hillary Clinton: "It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email."
Kessler focuses on whether the statement is true and whether it amounts to evasion of record-keeping laws. He does not discuss what I consider to be the far more serious problem. (To be fair, that problem may not lie within his "fact-checking" mission.)
Is it a good thing that "everybody knew"? If something is widely known within our government, then you can bet your bottom dollar it is known to the people who spy on our government.
If Russian intelligence knows that the American Secretary of State's email is hosted on a "soft target" private server, is that a good thing? Is it good if Chinese intelligence knows? Is it good if Al-Qaeda knows? No, no, and no. Not just no, but hell no. Even if the emails were not classified (and there is good reason to believe many of them were) people involved with secret information "talk around" it all the time. Spies can add pieces to their jigsaw puzzle from unclassified correspondence.
This was gross recklessness, dereliction of duty, and probably criminal. It should certainly be disqualifying for higher office.
Kessler focuses on whether the statement is true and whether it amounts to evasion of record-keeping laws. He does not discuss what I consider to be the far more serious problem. (To be fair, that problem may not lie within his "fact-checking" mission.)
Is it a good thing that "everybody knew"? If something is widely known within our government, then you can bet your bottom dollar it is known to the people who spy on our government.
If Russian intelligence knows that the American Secretary of State's email is hosted on a "soft target" private server, is that a good thing? Is it good if Chinese intelligence knows? Is it good if Al-Qaeda knows? No, no, and no. Not just no, but hell no. Even if the emails were not classified (and there is good reason to believe many of them were) people involved with secret information "talk around" it all the time. Spies can add pieces to their jigsaw puzzle from unclassified correspondence.
This was gross recklessness, dereliction of duty, and probably criminal. It should certainly be disqualifying for higher office.
If I had done this, either in the US Attorney's Office or in the time I spent in White House Counsel's Office, I would have been fired on the spot and probably prosecuted.
The idea that someone this careless with national security data is asking people to put her in charge of national security just blows my mind.