The real issues over Hillary’s email scandal

Hillary Clinton thinks she is above the law, that she can explain away whatever she wants and people should just accept that.

She is wrong and here is why the emails scandal needs to be pursued.

In a February 23 hearing on a Freedom of Information Act request for Hillary Clinton’s official State Department emails—emails that don’t exist because Hillary Clinton secretly conducted email on a private Blackberrry connected to a private server—District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan exclaimed, “How in the world could this happen?”

That’s the key question. What matters about the Clinton email scandal is not the nefarious conduct that she sought to hide by using her own server. There’s no evidence of any such nefarious conduct. What matters is that she made an extremely poor decision: poor because it violated State Department rules, poor because it could have endangered cyber-security, and poor because it now constitutes a serious self-inflicted political wound. Why did such a smart, seasoned public servant exercise such bad judgment? For the same reason she has in the past: Because she walls herself off from alternative points of view.  

In the journalistic reconstructions of Clinton’s decision, two things become clear. First, State Department security experts strongly opposed it. As the Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow Jr. reported in a terrific piece in March, “State Department security officials were distressed about the possibility that Clinton’s BlackBerry could be compromised and used for eavesdropping.” Soon after Clinton became Secretary of State, they expressed that distress in a February 2009 meeting with Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton loyalist. In a March memo to Clinton herself, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell wrote that, “I cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable.”

The second thing that becomes clear is that these security experts ran into a brick wall of longtime Clinton aides whose priority was not security, but rather her desire for privacy and convenience. “From the earliest days,” writes O’Harrow Jr., “Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account” and in so doing “neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry.” In August 2011, when the State Department’s executive secretary Stephen Mull broached the idea of replacing Clinton’s personal Blackberry with a “Department issued” one, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and close personal aide, Huma Abedin, replied that the “state blackberry…doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

I think it is inevitable that the FBI will indict her. Who knows what will happen to the presidential race then.

 – The Atlantic


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Keeping Stock

    Whether or not Clinton is indicted is largely academic now. The mere fact that the FBI and Department of Justice has conducted such an exhaustive investigation with such damning findings should render her completely and utterly unsuitable to be running for President.

    • shykiwibloke

      If she was a republican, there would be continuous howls of outrage from the media, complete with Hollywood A listers publicly voicing their disgust.

      • Chinaman

        Whether she she gets indicted is a political decision made by the DOJ (Obama appointment) boils down to what Obama wants to do.

        You get an idea of which way he is leaning by going on TV recently and saying Hillary made a ”honest mistake”.

        What complicates it for the democrats is if the DOJ don`t indict her the FBI will start the middle of the election campaign.

        • shykiwibloke

          A very astute observation. Leaking slowly would be death by a thousand cuts. Donald would be able to keep the story going for the entire election cycle.

    • Miss McGerkinshaw

      “… should render her completely and utterly unsuitable to be running for President.”

      The key word here to my mind is ‘should’ but it doesn’t seem anyone has the willingness to even question yet do anything about her continuing to run.

      • Boondecker

        Trump is. Remember “Crooked Hillary”? He and his team appear to be trying to not upset the FBI / DoJ investigation apple cart too much as it is ongoing and current. They are obliged not to get in the way. However, there is a constant sniping from the sidelines, including repeating the “crooked” moniker at every opportunity. Subliminally, and overtly as much as they can, they are dismantling her reputation.

        • Miss McGerkinshaw

          Fair point, although from the ‘other side’ it never holds as much water is my feeling (fear?)
          However, hope he succeeds is all I can say.

  • shykiwibloke

    I think the real question is can the current president or his administration intervene and prevent or delay such an indictment? (By legitimate means or old fashioned leaning)
    Look – she managed to set up and use this system and completely ignored advice. What’s to say that won’t happen with the investigation at some level? The MSM sure as heck won’t object or report it.

    • The Fat Man

      Correct like here the MSM are very careful not to upset certain people.

      They also like to run puff pieces for Councils and Government spouting the company line and call it news.

  • The Fat Man

    It is not inevitable that she will be indicted.

    This is the US, the president will probably pardon her.

    But with or without an indictment you would have to question if she was suitable material for the Presidential job.

    What does it say about the Political process in the US and Democracy.

    • An indictment is the start of the process and Obama will be long gone before he will have a chance to pardon her.

      • Dan

        And am I right in believing that a President cannot pardon herself?

      • sheppy

        You have to wonder if after Bill’s presidency that she thinks she’s totally safe from anything meaningful in the ways of prosecution. Especially given that Bill got away with “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

    • Dan

      Obama federal lawyers are trying hard for as we speak

      Late Thursday evening, the Justice Department filed a court motion opposing the Clinton deposition request from conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch, claiming that the organization was trying to dramatically expand the scope of the lawsuit.

      They are very keen to see that the scope of the enquiry does not go beyond Clinton. Which comes back to the point the Judge above mentions – “how did this happen?”

      The thing is, do they want to focus only on throwing Hillary under the bus or prevent a lot of collateral damage to the State Dept along the way?


    • Metricman

      You only get pardoned if you get convicted, not indicted!.
      An indictment would be a political hole that she does not need at the moment, if ever.

  • Ross15

    Unfortunately what will probably happen is there will delay upon delay until after the election. If she wins it will be swept under the carpet. If Trump wins, well -wait and see.

  • Disinfectant

    If they don’t indict her, Someone might take out a private prosecution.

  • Don O’Brien

    Both candidates have problems to face. Trump is facing a law-suit by the State of New York over his “University”

  • Rebecca

    As I have said before – Hillary will be forced to stand down and the race will be Trump and Sanders – Trump will win
    Be fun to watch

  • PersonOfColor:WHITE

    If Clinton is indicted, the public administration system in the US will go up greatly in my estimation, but I am not holding my breath.

  • Tim Brown

    Actually this will be driven by the law in the US. However you feel about Hillary the burden of proof is that she “knowingly” gave up secret documents. Unless you can prove that documents were given up and that she knew they were secret there is no crime. Stop listening to the right wing media and look at the law.