But I am genuinely curious about this. It doesn't seem like wrongdoing per se, or even anything unethical. But I don't like the trend of losing documents from the historical record. And I think that (while her email security is probably better than State Dept. as a whole) it probably would have been better as the leader to hold herself to the same standards as everyone in the organization as a general principle.
Curious to hear if anyone here has .gov experience and can give useful insight into the story.
Obviously there are political motivations. But any time a law is broken by a candidate or official, it's hard to argue that it's not honest news. May be blown out of proportion, etc., but still legitimate news.
If a law wasn't broken, it might look like she's hiding something, but I agree that it's probably going to be quickly forgotten.
Also, the political motivations might not be partisan. Partisans would choose timing carefully for maximum effect, and this doesn't seem like bad timing for Democrats. If the story blows up huge, they can nominate someone else; and if not, they nominate Clinton and this is forgotten by the time of the general election.
The only two reasons I can think of why she would choose private over government issued is ease of use and control over access. If it is too bothersome for her to use a government account, then she shouldn't be in the position. If she's afraid she'll leave incriminating evidence, we don't need her.
This. Recall that only a few weeks ago, the leading republican candidate was falling all over himself announce that he was publishing all his emails from his time in office. In the seemingly desperate rush to make a spectacle of it, he didn't even redact the emails , and released a big pile of private data as a result.
Also, given the state of the State Department's computer network , who can blame her? But the most telling part is that she wasn't even the first Secretary of State to do this, she was the last.
I don't say this because I'm a supporter, it just seems like obvious political theater being run by the rival camp and merits being called out. Personally I'm disappointed that both the Clinton and Bush campaigns aren't being laughed off the stage. Political aristocracy is repugnant and has no place in this country.
If you don't believe that, then you are probably a liberal democrat.
So, to call this news story about a politician acting in a premeditated, unscrupulous/unethical manner a "hit job" shows your deep political bias.
To turn it around, would you feel it was a "hit job" if a politician whose ideas and agendas you disagree with, set up an outside email server for the express purpose of discussing official government business so that it wouldn't/couldn't be easily tracked? I don't think you would.
I'm sufficiently well developed to separate my feelings about a politician from their political party, and in turn from my own feelings about an abstract ethical scenario. And none of this is to say anything about my political beliefs, which are personal and none of anyones beeswax.
This isn't abstract either, as some other poster mentioned, this is widespread, bipartisan behavior. I think that if there is evidence of malfeasance, then they should be required to produce their email (privately served or not) via subpoena. I can see the loophole about having people policing their own email archiving, but I honestly do not know if that is illegal, hence why I asked if any experts here knew if this violated any laws or policies.
EDIT: also, you assume this is sourced from a conservative or Republican group? Primaries happen before generals.
Didn't Cheney have a man-sized safe in his office or something? I don't remember anyone on the left screaming about that.