4 ms·
From the article: """ Clinton lawyer David Kendall later told the State Department that her “use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other S
by davesque 11y ago
From the article:
"""
Clinton lawyer David Kendall later told the State Department that her “use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other Secretaries of State,” citing Powell in particular, according to a letter he wrote in August.
But Powell’s circumstances also differed from Clinton’s in notable ways. Powell had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. At the time, he was pushing the department to embrace the Internet era and wanted to set an example.
“I performed a little test whenever I visited an embassy: I’d dive into the first open office I could find (sometimes it was the ambassador’s office). If the computer was on, I’d try to get into my private email account,” Powell wrote in “It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership.” “If I could, they passed.”
Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews. Clinton never had such a desktop or a classified email account, according to the State Department.
"""
...sooooo. Colin Powell did the same thing as Clinton and all we have is his (and his staff's) claims that they didn't communicate classified information over inappropriate channels? So then what makes this situation any different or any more deserving of attention?
- gcommer 11y agoWait, what? The 4 paragraphs you quoted seem to directly answer your question about how Powell and HRC acted differently ("Clinton never had such a desktop or a classified email account, according to the State Department.") Also, even if we now find out that Powell acted as poorly as HRC, that doesn't excuse either of them at all. It just means that they're both guilty, not that Hillary should get off the hook because previous Secretaries of State did it too.
- davesque 11y agoSo that's all we have that makes what Powell did okay? Either he or the WP is simply assuring us that he never sent any important emails through his private email account (which he liked to log into from random computers)? Furthermore, isn't the point here that, apparently (if the stories of Powell and Clinton are any indication), the government doesn't really try that hard to secure the communications of its cabinet members? The way I had imagined it is that, as soon as these people take office, they're given the best crypto tech in the world. They're not told to take a hike because only the POTUS gets the good stuff. What kind of sense does that make?
- adventured 11y ago> So then what makes this situation any different or any more deserving of attention? Well that's pretty obvious: she's the leading candidate for the Presidency. Would you claim it's unfair that the leading candidate for the highest office shouldn't be heavily scrutinized or treated differently than other people? That premise wouldn't be realistic, the world has never and will never work that way. It's unfair? Ok, let's say it's unfair (assuming similar abuses occurred under the last Bush White House and aren't going to be pursued at all), I agree... so what. Since when do leading presidential candidates get treated fairly? It's also unfair if Hillary is being protected from prosecution by the Obama Administration, which appears to be the case right now. General Petraeus had his career destroyed for doing less than what Hillary has done. We already know for a fact that she communicated classified information improperly. If there's no evidence that Colin Powell did anything wrong, then you don't get to proclaim that he broke the law. The difference - if that's all the evidence that exists regarding Powell - is that we have a full chain of proof of what Hillary did. Hillary should get into appropriate trouble for it (which would instantly end her candidacy for President), and there needs to be an investigation into any other recent past abuses. It's that simple.
- davesque 11y agoThe point is that, apparently, these kinds of insecure practices are common among the cabinet members. So it makes the story about _her_ being the incompetent/malicious actor much less compelling.