Hillary's Other Server Scandal

[TimothyC]

Bernie Sanders keeps refusing to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator’s relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton’s corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information.

The question hanging over the Clinton campaign is whether she will be indicted for mishandling state secrets. Under the heroic grilling of Jorge Ramos at the Univision Democratic debate Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton was again forced to roll out a trail of misdirection, to insist (with astonishing brazenness) that an indictment is “not going to happen.”

Classified information matters, and Mrs. Clinton stands accused of sloppy handling. Yet the former secretary of state didn’t set up a home-brew server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. Mrs. Clinton went to elaborate lengths to build a secret, private system for some other reason. She says it was for “convenience.” Others speculate she did it out of the Clintons’ longtime paranoia over paper trails.

Mr. Sanders is likely hitting closer to the truth. Lost in the classified kerfuffle is the other, lately ignored but still potent, scandal: the Clinton Foundation, and the unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing. The more evidence that comes out, the more it looks as if that server was set up to provide an off-the-grid means for those two worlds to interact.

Take Bryan Pagliano, now reported to have received Justice Department immunity in return for talking about his email services rendered. Mr. Pagliano has long ties to the Clintons. He ran Mrs. Clinton’s IT shop during her 2008 presidential campaign and then worked for her political-action committee. He was important enough that she custom-built a job for him at the State Department. He arrived only a few months after her in 2009, and he left when she left.

Mr. Pagliano maintained Mrs. Clinton’s server in her New York home. The State Department paid him, but a Clinton official confirmed to the Washington Post that the Clintons paid him in addition. Mr. Pagliano did not report that outside money on disclosure forms—as he was required to do. And the State Department claims to have been unaware that Mr. Pagliano was getting personally paid by the secretary of state.

So Mr. Pagliano gets added to the list of insiders who were compensated to work simultaneously for the government and the Clintons. Huma Abedin at one point worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton and a private company tied to the Clintons—all at the same time. Cheryl Mills worked for Mrs. Clinton at State while also holding a position at the Clinton Foundation. Sidney Blumenthal secretly assisted Mrs. Clinton at State (unpaid), while on the foundation payroll.

While in government, Ms. Mills was paid by an outside entity to negotiate with a foreign country (the United Arab Emirates) that had donated to the Clinton Foundation. She was also among those who reviewed Bill Clinton’s speaking events.

Ms. Abedin held her own clintonemail.com account. We recently found out that the State Department’s inspector general issued a subpoena to the foundation last fall, demanding documents about projects it engaged in while Mrs. Clinton was the nation’s top diplomat. That subpoena specifically asked for records related to Ms. Abedin.

Mrs. Clinton would have us believe that the 31,830 emails she deleted from her server pertained to yoga and weddings. And yet look at what the press has gleaned even from the few emails and foundation details that were released.

Foundation cash after Russian mining approvals. More than a dozen speeches by Bill to corporations and governments with business pending before Hillary’s State Department. Dozens more donations to the foundation from companies that were lobbying the State Department. Checks to the foundation from a Swiss bank after Secretary of State Clinton solved its IRS problem. An email to Ms. Abedin, while she was at State, asking for help winning a presidential appointment for a Clinton Foundation donor.

What else? Plenty, surely. The Clinton Foundation existed in recent years to serve as an unofficial PAC for Mrs. Clinton’s expected presidential run. And Mrs. Clinton’s job at State was designed to serve the same end. Of course the business of the two was intertwined. And here’s to betting the server was maintained to facilitate that intertwinement.

Mr. Sanders started ramping up his attacks on Mrs. Clinton for her ties to “billionaires” and “Wall Street” in mid-January. That’s almost precisely the time that news organizations reported (without garnering much public attention) that the FBI had expanded its email probe to examine the “intersection” between Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and the foundation. What is Mr. Pagliano now telling as part of his immunity deal?

Mr. Sanders knows that his corporate-special-interest line already plays well with crowds; it reminds people of the stench of the Clintons’ ethics. But he may also be betting that the FBI finds more to peg on Mrs. Clinton than simply classified emails. And he may be right.

Sanders really should be smashing her over the head for this (It's his shtick), but I really think he's the dog that got his jaws around the school bus bumper and now doesn't know what he is going to do.

[Zaune]

So... what part of this is unique to the Clintons, exactly?

[Patroklos]

Everything? I can't think of a single parallel at this political level.

Its shocking to me that the foreign money doesn't enrage more lefties, especially since much of it was paid while she was at state.

That nondisclosure of outside employment is another thing that would get any other Joe fired at the least but probably thrown in jail btw. Just buisness as usual in at clan Clinton.

[Lord MJ]

I remember in 2012 some story about Romney funding South or Central American death squads or something like that. This Clinton foundation story is almost just as bad as that.

EDIT: Article didn't mention Clinton approving weapons to the Saudis after the Saudis donated to the Clinton foundation. Weapons currently being used in a campaign in Yemen that some could call genocidal

[madd0ct0r]

Everything? I can't think of a single parallel at this political level.

Its shocking to me that the foreign money doesn't enrage more lefties, especially since much of it was paid while she was at state.

That nondisclosure of outside employment is another thing that would get any other Joe fired at the least but probably thrown in jail btw. Just buisness as usual in at clan Clinton.

Ahem: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/ ... rton200711

His obvious adversaries are the contracting corporations themselves—especially Halliburton, the giant oil-services conglomerate where Vice President Dick Cheney spent the latter half of the 1990s as C.E.O., and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, now known simply as KBR. But he says his efforts to take on those organizations have earned him another enemy: the United States Department of Justice.

Does Vice-President outrank Secretary-of-State?

[Simon_Jester]

Secretary Clinton would, in my opinion, have been justified in hiring a person she already knew and trusted (Pagliano) in the capacity of a personal assistant IF that person themselves had proper security clearance. That is a privilege I would normally grant to senior government executives and other officials. Much like how a president's chief of staff and press secretary are likely to be people they've worked with before.

You simply cannot enter a high government office, without a staff of people you know personally and can rely upon to understand your needs and the way you operate.

So I would say that in itself, in this case, Clinton would also be justified in hiring Pagliano to help maintain her personal IT systems, again because this is a person she has a trusting relationship with. So far, no problem.

However, it would then grossly unethical for Clinton to then ALSO pay Pagliano on the side to do work for her acting in her private capacity. Which, if the quote in the original post is true, is what she did.

And yes, this raises legitimate concerns about what activities Clinton might have engaged in, that caused her to think she needed to pay her State Department IT guy on the side to set up her private server at home to communicate her private business. And to what extent she mingled personal business and State Department business.
_________________________

Side note, I would not SPECIFICALLY be concerned that Bill Clinton gave speeches to "corporations and governments with business pending before Hillary’s State Department" without more evidence of wrongdoing.

Literally every government in the world, and pretty much every international corporation, has business with the State Department on an ongoing basis.

Being married to the Secretary of State shouldn't mean that one is forbidden from speaking to foreigners, or to corporate executives who happen to have overseas business interests.* To me, it's only a problem if there is evidence that some kind of quid pro quo arrangement was in pay by which the foreign interests or the corporation bribed the Secretary by agreeing to take on the fees.

*I feel that this is a necessary consequence of modern working life. In 1916, the secretary of state's spouse had literally NO gainful employment, and whose sole role was to appear on his arm at diplomatic functions and the like. Today, anyone we hire as secretary of state is likely to have a spouse who themselves has a career and a job of their own.

It is unreasonable to ask the spouse to effectively quit their job; they're not the one being paid to be Secretary of State...

Although it certainly IS reasonable to expect there to be no sign of quid pro quo involving the spouse's business in exchange for favors from the government official.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ahem: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/ ... rton200711

Um ... sorry, but that article really isn't comparable to this situation with Hillary.

Hillary is accused of improperly using her private foundation to benefit her position as secretary of state, through back-door quid pro quo and other dealings.

That article describes the Bush administration pressuring the DoJ (through firing of prosecutors, etc.) into not prosecuting private contractors on war profiteering charges, presumably due to the Cheney's connection with Halliburton.

They really aren't the same situation, other than the nebulous "government official connected with private entity", but that isn't the critical part of either story. Nobody is saying a government official can't have some sort of connections with private entities. In the case of the article you posted, the impropriety is that the government is then trying to protect that private entity by covering up crimes. In the case of Clinton, the (alleged) impropriety is that she essentially used the foundation to take bribes related to government deals, or otherwise improperly apply leverage. They aren't the same situation (indeed, as usual for this types of discussions, what the Bush administration did was demonstrably worse).

[Zaune]

Secretary Clinton would, in my opinion, have been justified in hiring a person she already knew and trusted (Pagliano) in the capacity of a personal assistant IF that person themselves had proper security clearance. That is a privilege I would normally grant to senior government executives and other officials. Much like how a president's chief of staff and press secretary are likely to be people they've worked with before.

You simply cannot enter a high government office, without a staff of people you know personally and can rely upon to understand your needs and the way you operate.

Well, that's not quite true; a number of countries make those permanent civil service positions reporting to the office of Secretary or Minister of the department. Whether that's a good idea or not is a matter for debate...

So I would say that in itself, in this case, Clinton would also be justified in hiring Pagliano to help maintain her personal IT systems, again because this is a person she has a trusting relationship with. So far, no problem.

However, it would then grossly unethical for Clinton to then ALSO pay Pagliano on the side to do work for her acting in her private capacity. Which, if the quote in the original post is true, is what she did.

And yes, this raises legitimate concerns about what activities Clinton might have engaged in, that caused her to think she needed to pay her State Department IT guy on the side to set up her private server at home to communicate her private business. And to what extent she mingled personal business and State Department business.

On the other hand, though... Suppose you wanted to set up a mail server and a VPN for some charity or freelance work you did on the side, but which sometimes impacted on your main job; forwarding certain work emails to a server in your basement as an off-site backup for example. Would it be particularly improper if you approached one of your company's IT personnel and asked them for help setting it up over the weekend, and paid them a reasonable rate for their time?

As to the rest, perhaps I'm being unduly cynical, but forgive me if I don't find the fact that Mrs Clinton did some favours for important people in the corporate world in return for campaign donations particularly shocking. Isn't that pretty much business as usual?

[Elheru Aran]

As to the rest, perhaps I'm being unduly cynical, but forgive me if I don't find the fact that Mrs Clinton did some favours for important people in the corporate world in return for campaign donations particularly shocking. Isn't that pretty much business as usual?

Cynical? Yes. Business as usual? Yes.

Doesn't mean it's quite the *right* thing to do, though.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, that's not quite true; a number of countries make those permanent civil service positions reporting to the office of Secretary or Minister of the department. Whether that's a good idea or not is a matter for debate...

My position is that high-ranking government executives have a right to appoint a few trusted long-time compatriots to 'senior secretary' type positions under themselves. This is a practical measure to prevent excessive friction between the civil service and the elected/appointed official running it. Not everyone does it this way, but I don't think it is a priori wrong to do it.

On the other hand, though... Suppose you wanted to set up a mail server and a VPN for some charity or freelance work you did on the side, but which sometimes impacted on your main job; forwarding certain work emails to a server in your basement as an off-site backup for example.

The Secretary of State shouldn't really be using their house as an off-site backup, unless they happen to live in a facility that can be secured against intrusions aimed at stealing top-secret information. Nor should the Secretary of State be freelancing, at least in the categories of 'freelancing' I can think of off the top of my head.

Would it be particularly improper if you approached one of your company's IT personnel and asked them for help setting it up over the weekend, and paid them a reasonable rate for their time?

Yes, it would be... if you did it without taking reasonable precautions to avoid a conflict of interest.

Plus, this isn't a private corporation we're talking about; it's the State Department. Working for the government creates higher standards of what constitutes conflict of interest, precisely because government agencies have legal power, which trumps mere fiscal power.

As to the rest, perhaps I'm being unduly cynical, but forgive me if I don't find the fact that Mrs Clinton did some favours for important people in the corporate world in return for campaign donations particularly shocking. Isn't that pretty much business as usual?

Firstly, it's not the case that every cabinet secretary does this kind of thing. Clinton's political ambitions are unusually strong by cabinet official standards, and I strongly suspect she was taking more in the way of donations through her organization.

Secondly, it being common doesn't make it right, ESPECIALLY if this can become a vehicle through which foreign governments or foreign-controlled corporations can slip a bribe to our secretary of state. Which is being at least implicitly alleged by the article cited in the OP.

[Patroklos]

Does Vice-President outrank Secretary-of-State?

Not at all the same thing. While some may feel Halliburton is evil, Halliburton is also not the private reservation of Dick Cheney when he was the CEO of it and certainly not when he was Vice President or otherwise. Halliburton has share holders, it has a board, it has financial responsibilities and industry realities that govern its actions and motivations.

Which is not to say a corporation like Haliburton can't be abused btw, its just different.

The Clinton Foundation is an entity which sole purpose is the aggrandizement of the Clintons, is wholly directed by the Clinton's, and to that end has no circumspection on what it can be used for. Someone might have undue influence over a corporation, the Clinton Foundation is is in the business of nothing but influence.
'

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, the Halliburton/KBR/etc abuses in Iraq are, so far as we know, much worse in terms of consequences.

We have, for instance, an example of ice served to soldiers being transported in trailers that two weeks earlier had been filled with piles of rotting human flesh, with the blood stains still on the floor of the trailer. That's pretty horrific by the standards of contractor malfeasance, and the sheer numbers indicate that there is a lot of other horrific malfeasance going on here, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars being effectively stolen from the taxpayer. That's "redo the Apollo program" scale money; stealing that kind of money is really bad. Even if the money didn't all wind up sequestered in Dick Cheney's pants or anything, it's still a profoundly serious problem.

The Clintons would have been hard pressed to do anything that bad during Hillary's time as secretary of state, and if they had I'm pretty damn sure someone would have mentioned it as more than a conspiracy theory by now.

....

We also have indications of conspiracy to suppress lawsuits and criminal investigations on the part of the Bush administration- as yet no comparable evidence of similar malfeasance here, but that might show up.

...

However, the qualitative difference is that Clinton appears to have been using her position for quid-pro-quo personal gain, whereas Cheney (and, no doubt, associates of his, probably including the president) were using their position for the overall gain of a large group of would-be kleptocrats. On the one hand, this means almost all the money wound up not enriching Bush administration politicians personally... on the other hand, it also enabled the Bush administration to create and tolerate thefts and corruption on a vastly larger scale.

Dick Cheney would never have been able to steal enough money to buy a moon base all by himself... but he could certainly do it on behalf of his thousand closest friends.

[madd0ct0r]

Shrug. Patrokles asked for a parallel at this political level. Grand influence of policy for personal enrichment and reward of cronies. You can always weasel out by increasing the speficity of the parallels until you require it to involve a server, a female politician and undue influence of policy. Even then I suspect Condoleezza rice's position on the board of dropbox and connections to the cia might be an example to pursue.

[Simon_Jester]

That's fair. Ziggy and I may have been missing the point by arguing that Cheney (and any associates involved in what he pretty clearly did) committed a different and greater offense.

It's still a parallel.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Shrug. Patrokles asked for a parallel at this political level. Grand influence of policy for personal enrichment and reward of cronies. You can always weasel out by increasing the speficity of the parallels until you require it to involve a server, a female politician and undue influence of policy. Even then I suspect Condoleezza rice's position on the board of dropbox and connections to the cia might be an example to pursue.

My main point was that the differences between the two situations are severe enough that the parallel you are drawing is too broad to be very useful. I feel like at that point you are just saying, "Name an example of any politician doing something bad", which isn't terribly constructive when looking for practically analogous situations or establishing precedents. They are both bad, but they are bad for different enough reasons (both legally and, in my opinion, morality) that I don't think it's a useful comparison. In my opinion. We can agree to disagree on that.

[Civil War Man]

Emails Show Clinton Sought Secure Smartphone In 2009, Was Rebuffed By NSA

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

The messages made public Wednesday were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group that has filed numerous lawsuits seeking the release of federal documents related to Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has come under intense scrutiny for her decision to use a private emailserver located in the basement of her New York home to route messages, including some containing sensitive information. Security experts have raised concern the arrangement could have left the messages vulnerable to attack by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies.

Clinton's desire for a secure "BlackBerry-like" device, like that provided to President Barack Obama, is recounted in a series of February 2009 exchanges between high-level officials at the State Department and NSA. Clinton was sworn in as secretary the prior month, and had become "hooked" on reading and answering emails on a BlackBerry she used during the 2008 presidential race.

"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."

Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color."

Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar.Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary.

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information, such as the block of offices used by senior State Department officials, known by the nickname "Mahogany Row" for the quality of their paneling. Mills said that was inconvenient, because they had to leave their offices and retrieve their phones to check messages.

Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns.

The department's designated NSA liaison, whose name was redacted from the documents, expressed concerns about security vulnerabilities inherent with using BlackBerry devices for secure communications or in secure areas. However, the specific reasons Clinton's requests were rebuffed are being kept secret by the State Department.

Clinton began sending work-related emails through private accounts soon after, in March 2009. The State Department has thus far released more than 52,000 pages of her work-related emails, a small percentage of which have been withheld because they contain information considered sensitive to national security.

In recent months, Clinton has said her home-based email setup was a mistake, but that she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon declined to comment Wednesday.

The FBI is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The inspectors general at the State Department and for U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken.

There are currently at least 38 lawsuits, including one filed by The Associated Press, seeking records related toClinton's service as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. On Tuesday, Judicial Watch filed a discovery motion in one of those cases seeking to question eight former State Department staffers under oath, including Mills and Reid. The judge overseeing the case indicated last month he was strongly considering allowing lawyers from the group to question Clinton's former aides.

"These documents show that Hillary Clinton knew her BlackBerry wasn't secure," Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said Wednesday. "The FBI and prosecutors ought to be very interested in these new materials."

It's not necessarily exculpatory or condemning, but I figured it was relevant to the topic. One does have to wonder whether we'd even be talking about this now if the NSA hadn't told her people to go pound sand when they asked for a secured Blackberry, though.

[Patroklos]

Are SECRET cell phones a thing? I have never run into one. At first glance it appears she was asking for something that doesn't exist. There are SECRET voice comms, but they sure as shit don't use cell phone infrastructure.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are SECRET cell phones a thing? I have never run into one.

Maybe that's because ... they're secret.

[Mr Bean]

Are SECRET cell phones a thing? I have never run into one. At first glance it appears she was asking for something that doesn't exist. There are SECRET voice comms, but they sure as shit don't use cell phone infrastructure.

Keep in mind it's classified UP to SECRET, there are ways of setting up secure voice communications I legally can't go into or describe but if you want to spend a few hours Googling you can find the information. However it's effectiveness... well there's a reason it only goes up to SECRET and no higher. SECRET is a rarely used classification as it is. Much more common are Confidential and TOP SECRET. Confidential gets used properly, TOP SECRET gets abused to shit and back for everything from stuff that should be Confidential to things that should be SECRET. It's an annoying problem the goverment has been dealing with since the classification system when nuts under Secretary Mcnamara during Vietnam.

[Patroklos]

SECRET is used a lot in the military. Pretty much all operational communications is done over the SIPRnet.

I think it's hilarious that when told she isn't the President and doesn't rate having here own dedicated communications network (the President has an entire office dedicated to his comms) she has a temper tantrum and just does what she wants. What this article confims is that she knew her communications required secuiity and that the devices she eventually decided to used couldn't secure it. If this article is legit is proof she knew she was doing something wrong.

[Simon_Jester]

That's one interpretation.

The other interpretation is that she had a legitimate concern that she would be unable to do her job to full effectiveness without some kind of portable device capable of handling secure information. She was told "no."

She proposed to do exactly what her predecessor had done- literally, the same exact thing Rice had done as Secretary of State- and was told "no."

If she is telling the truth, she then went "well, shit," proceeded to awkwardly handle her classified communications through whatever awkward 20th century means were available, while trying to use more modern technology based out of her house for some of the non-classified communications in order to do her damn job at the same level of effectiveness as virtually every other modern executive and politician (who get to use portable information-handling devices).

While this may or may not open her to some sort of charges, I don't feel it represents bad faith on her part. The most likely offense for her to commit in that case would be carelessness, not "she knew she was doing something wrong."

[Patroklos]

I will remember that the next time my security manager, the resident expert on the matter, requires something I personally feel impedes my work. I am sure there would be no negative consequences if everyone had that attitude. That's a BS arguement SJ and you know it.

However, if what you say is the case her taking matters into her own hands isn't the solution. Getting on the horn with the higher authority, in her case her pal Obama, and asking him to authorize for her the same level of resources he has is. Maybe she can get some launch codes and a custom 777 while she is at it.

How can you maintain she didn't know she was doing something wrong when the article above states she asked for what she did because she knew that was the right way? Do you think she approached the NSA to go above and beyond what she thought was nescessary?

[TimothyC]

If she is telling the truth, she then went "well, shit," proceeded to awkwardly handle her classified communications through whatever awkward 20th century means were available, while trying to use more modern technology based out of her house for some of the non-classified communications in order to do her damn job at the same level of effectiveness as virtually every other modern executive and politician (who get to use portable information-handling devices).

Simon, we have her on record telling people that if they can't make the classified fax system work to copy the content to unclassified email and send it to her without markings. That, to me, demonstrates that she knew what she should and what she should not be doing. I also eagerly await an analysis of the 30k+ emails that were not handed over to the State Department at the end of her tenure.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, we have her on record telling people that if they can't make the classified fax system work to copy the content to unclassified email and send it to her without markings.

Better point there. Not sure if I hadn't heard of it before, or had heard and forgotten it.

I will remember that the next time my security manager, the resident expert on the matter, requires something I personally feel impedes my work. I am sure there would be no negative consequences if everyone had that attitude. That's a BS arguement SJ and you know it.

However, if what you say is the case her taking matters into her own hands isn't the solution. Getting on the horn with the higher authority, in her case her pal Obama, and asking him to authorize for her the same level of resources he has is. Maybe she can get some launch codes and a custom 777 while she is at it.

How can you maintain she didn't know she was doing something wrong when the article above states she asked for what she did because she knew that was the right way? Do you think she approached the NSA to go above and beyond what she thought was nescessary?

Do I think she "knew she was doing something wrong?" No. Do I think she "knew she was violating regulations?" yes. Do I think she thought the regulations were right? She should have thought so, but I'm pretty sure she didn't.

I don't think she was intentionally doing anything that in her mind was harmful.

I think she thought she was trying to find a way around what she saw as pointless bureaucratic obstructionism from subordinates.

I think she then got lazy and sloppy about segregating the classified and unclassified content, due to her own arrogance about being above the rules, which is a very common flaw among politicians and which I am quite sure Mrs. Clinton shares in full measure.

She then practiced this sloppiness to an extent which I cannot be sure of, because I'm not going to personally read all those emails and it will be years if not decades before any unbiased person inclined to share their conclusions does so. Besides which, if she DID put anything genuinely consequential into her private emails, it's probably going to remain classified until God knows when even if the people we're trying to hide the information from wind up dead and buried, so I will NEVER have an opportunity to judge for myself how bad her actions really were.

You can make an excellent argument she violated regulations, the consequences of which are severe punishment, and I don't even really think that's wrong.

I will caution you, however, that from the point of view of a lot of people in the US, "playing fast and loose with the rules in order to get the job done" is a fairly sympathetic platform to stand on. Hillary's ability to stand on this platform will have effects on the political consequences of her actions, whatever those consequences may be.