6 ms·

I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole

I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.

tptacek 10y ago
We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.
- ovidnis 10y ago
  source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
    - ovidnis 10y ago
      There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
      - pcwalton 10y ago
        It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
        fluentintypo 10y ago
        There are literally multiple hundreds of 'media-related' emails and in some cases, the campaign wrote the articles and gave them to reporters to print. So, good on ou for finding one of those hundreds who went on record to clarify and defend their agreement with the Clinton campaign, but you have hundreds more to go.
JackFaker 10y ago
An aside - it's been mentioned many times in recent years that the rules regarding email for adminstration officials were never so clearly defined as to preclude someone from running their own email server and the Bush administration employed many non governmental email accounts and servers. They even 'lost' Up To 22 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... I'm honestly curious as to why that was never investigated with the same level of intensity.
- acdha 10y ago
  The simplest explanation is that the Democrats were only briefly in power in Congress and going after the Bush administration didn't make political sense — Obama rather famously called to move forward rather than fight over the past. In contrast, a wide range of right-wing people have spent three decades and many millions of dollars going after both Clintons, with considerable personal demonization over that time. When Obama was elected, the GOP's goal was to limit him to one term. That means a bunch of people had angles to exploit anything remotely plausible: it kept the base riled up and voting accordingly, it helped attack the sitting president by association, and maybe damage his most likely successor. The entire email story was only discovered as part of the endless attempts to trump up a scandal from the Benghazi attack, by which time the pattern of relentlessly litigating everything was just the assumed default. There just isn't an equivalent on the Democratic side. Yes, there are people who don't like Bush (or now Trump) but there aren't rich people pushing to scrutinize his private life and the members of Congress don't seem to think that's a good use of their time.

tptacek 10y ago

We in fact do not know that. Moreover, during the time period Clinton was using her personal mail server --- a thing she discussed at length with Colin Powell, her predecessor --- the State Department's own email server was comprehensively owned up by (wait for it) Russian hackers. It is not only possible but actually somewhat likely that her mails were safer on her own server.

ovidnis 10y ago
source on the source being russian hackers? besides from msm echochamber?
- tptacek 10y ago
  The "msm echochamber" thing is an especially funny trope, as it amounts to saying, "source on that claim, apart from all of the journalists who actually investigate claims like this".
  - ovidnis 10y ago
    There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      It is an unreasonable request, given that the emails say nothing of the sort. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
      - fluentintypo 10y ago
        There are literally multiple hundreds of 'media-related' emails and in some cases, the campaign wrote the articles and gave them to reporters to print. So, good on ou for finding one of those hundreds who went on record to clarify and defend their agreement with the Clinton campaign, but you have hundreds more to go.

JackFaker 10y ago

An aside - it's been mentioned many times in recent years that the rules regarding email for adminstration officials were never so clearly defined as to preclude someone from running their own email server and the Bush administration employed many non governmental email accounts and servers. They even 'lost' Up To 22 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... I'm honestly curious as to why that was never investigated with the same level of intensity.

acdha 10y ago
The simplest explanation is that the Democrats were only briefly in power in Congress and going after the Bush administration didn't make political sense — Obama rather famously called to move forward rather than fight over the past. In contrast, a wide range of right-wing people have spent three decades and many millions of dollars going after both Clintons, with considerable personal demonization over that time. When Obama was elected, the GOP's goal was to limit him to one term. That means a bunch of people had angles to exploit anything remotely plausible: it kept the base riled up and voting accordingly, it helped attack the sitting president by association, and maybe damage his most likely successor. The entire email story was only discovered as part of the endless attempts to trump up a scandal from the Benghazi attack, by which time the pattern of relentlessly litigating everything was just the assumed default. There just isn't an equivalent on the Democratic side. Yes, there are people who don't like Bush (or now Trump) but there aren't rich people pushing to scrutinize his private life and the members of Congress don't seem to think that's a good use of their time.