Yesterday, after a week of the story of her maintaining her own email server for her public business as Secretary of State fermenting, Secretary Clinton made public statements about it. The editors of the Washington Post aren’t satisfied:
HILLARY RODHAM Clinton offered a soupcon of regret at a news conference Tuesday for having used private e-mail exclusively during her nearly four years as secretary of state. “Looking back, it would’ve been better†if she had not used a private e-mail account for official business, she conceded. Ms. Clinton said she decided to do so for “convenience†because “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two.â€
Ms. Clinton noted that it is a “government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related.†In general, this has been true; if a State Department official writes a personal note to a family member from a work e-mail address, that official can decide to withhold it from government archives. Each official has a responsibility to preserve federal records — messages and documents about policies and decisions. The methods of preservation have differed over time and among agencies; some still use paper printouts, and others have software options for preserving a record or e-mail. Government agencies are required to move to electronic preservation of e-mail records by the end of 2016.
What Ms. Clinton did not mention was that the Obama administration had clearly directed officials to use government e-mail networks for official business. She departed from this for “convenience.†Did she know about the policy? Did others know of her exclusive use of private e-mail? Did anyone raise an objection?
The target audience for her statement was not her political opponents but mainstream media journalists. Judging by the WaPo editors’ response it wasn’t successful. I thought it was remarkably maladroit for major party presidential candidate frontrunner, especially in a statement you’ve had a week to prepare. The part I had particular difficulty with was her assertion that the Secret Service had secured the server. That raises a host of questions on its own. Perhaps we’re learning that the Secret Service has security capabilities that go well beyond physical security. Or perhaps we’re learning that Sec. Clinton isn’t aware of best practice in securing servers of which physical security is only one part.
It does appear as though physical security for the server was provided using public money. Was the server itself, its infrastructure, and its connectivity paid for with public money? Was this email server public or private?
I certainly hope we’re not in for a decade more of this.
Predictions, please. Has Sec. Clinton successfully dealt with this particular story? Does it have legs?
One thing I didn’t work into this post is that hiding things, making excuses, and failing to make a full disclosure are really good ways to get your security clearance revoked.
The issue of whether or not the government employees get to decide what is archived is important, I think. When employees use the govt server then there will be a way to retrieve messages later even if the employee did not archive them. The way that Clinton chose to handle this (obviously by design) turns that process around so that the default is for her to have sole control of the messages and only turn them over at her discretion. Thus it’s highly disingenuous for her to present this as though it’s the same discretion that every employee is given.
That goes to the transparency issue, and then about security: I had forgotten about that hacking incident in 2013 which exposed emails to Clinton by Sidney Blumenthal. Is it likely that the hacker would have also gained access to Clinton’s server, or is it plausible that the downstream messages wouldn’t have necessarily exposed her own system if the security was good enough?
Regardless, it is certainly interesting to read the contemporaneous accounts of that incident with the benefit of hindsight (people were wondering then why she was using a private email account, for instance, and expressing concerns about classified information shared that way.)
I’ve seen a lot of remarkably poorly informed remarks on this story even from people who should know better. Any reasonably capable system administrator should be able to configure a mail server so that the outgoing domain was anything they care for it to be. In other words there may have been no way for recipients of these emails to know where they actually originated. They might run into issues when they did a reply-to but I haven’t heard anybody even mention that possibility.
The scandal might have legs in a Democratic primary. Marshall’s take is the correct one–given the way Whitewater went down, she had plausible reasons for being paranoid. But who wants to relive any of that?
On the other hand, everyone in the press seems really clueless. For all of the bad vibes the Clintons send off, they left with high approval ratings and the blue dress is part of pop cultural lore. No one has bad memories about Bill and Monica–well, virtually no one. And keep in mind this is a terribly boring scandal. We’re already on the IT issues and are approaching Benghazi.
So I’m thinking no. This scandal hovers around the edges unless the GOP provides a better answer as to why this is a scandal except that it’s Hillary Clinton so something must be bad. And I don’t see that. Because the main issue with this is transparency, and if she’s not transparent, why is she not transparent? Other than being Hillary Clinton, that is. If it’s money, I’m really looking forward to Koch-backed Scott Walker or Jeb Bush to argue with a straight face that there’s a problem here.
How do you think “Whitewater went down”?
For all of the bad vibes the Clintons send off, they left with high approval ratings and the blue dress is part of pop cultural lore.
I think the problem is that Bill is not the one running. He had the political talent, the intellect and personal charisma to get past the scandals but Hillary does not.
In other words, there might not be much “there” there with regard to this scandal- particularly if people find the technical aspects boring- but there’s also not that much “there” to recommend Hillary as a candidate. I really think the only reason she’s in the front runner position is that the alternatives are so dismal.
Have you read about it? Robert Fiske was set to say the Clintons were not involved. Then a Reagan-appointed judge replaced him with Kenneth Starr, who spent another couple years harassing the Clintons to arrive at the same conclusion. Which makes sense, because they were the ones being ripped off. When that didn’t work, he ended up with the remains of the Paula Jones lawsuit, which allowed him to start fishing for women as a prosecutor.
How do you think it went down?
I think the problem is that Bill is not the one running. He had the political talent, the intellect and personal charisma to get past the scandals but Hillary does not.
Sure, she may not. But take a look at the Republican field and any possible last-minute Democrat. There’s nobody there. Nobody. She’s not an idiot. I doubt she believes that she’s going to win through charisma. If she wins, she’s going to win because of Obama’s policies and her defense of thsoe plus the fact that people admire her in a generic way plus the fact that the GOP really has nothing.
God, I just remembered reading William Safire in 1995 in the Times saying Clinton will be indicted or shoot herself in the head or something within a year. I was naive enough to believe that. This election is going to be like 90s cosplay.
I think the conclusion, after years of fact-finding, was that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the Clintons. From a criminal prosecution standpoint given the presumption of innocence, that means they were innocent. I think that from a political standpoint, using the “reasonable person” standard, it’s likely they were corrupt.
Uh, “the Clintons” didn’t leave office with high approval ratings. Hillary Clinton’s approval rating was around 45% in 2000. Bill Clinton’s approval rating when he left office was about 60%. Ronald Reagan’s was about 53%.
But take a look at the Republican field and any possible last-minute Democrat. There’s nobody there. Nobody
I’m not enthusiastic about anyone on the horizon now either but may God help us if we can’t do better than this.
The more I think about this the more I think we are trying to achieve the unachievable. We now have a policy that explicitly states that all emails pertinent to govt business must be sent on govt email servers. That still relies upon the discretion of the person sending the email to decide which email server to use. If people want to hide stuff they can still use their own personal email.
Steve
Steve it still seems to me that having the rule in place allows the exceptions to be noted. So if someone at WH gets an email from State that didn’t go through .gov, they can assess whether to not that was proper (is it an invitation to a barbecue, or is it work related- in which case a decision needs to be made to reiterate the rule in some way or perhaps automatically copy a .gov email address to get it into the archive.
I’m sure there would still be things slipping through cracks but an entire pattern like a Cabinet officer neglecting to have a .gov address at all would stand out.
And of course- people can still conduct nefarious activities or discuss things that put them in unflattering light, through their personal accts- but this has always been the case since people can also meet in person or talk on phone lines that they feel reasonably sure are secure, to evade transparency. Policies can’t cover everything, but they can and should state the expectations for how business is conducted in a way that maintains a public record.
I think Marshal’s and Lipson’s points were closest to mine. She has not brought this issue to an end; I don’t know if we possibly know whether she could. But this is the type of issue that will “drip, drip” through a whole host of issues that come and go.
@steve, “The more I think about this the more I think we are trying to achieve the unachievable.”
I do not understand your point here. Do you oppose gun control, because criminals will still get guns anyway? Regulated entities usually have document retention requirements. Government should not be regulated?
If your point is that if Hillary had used government servers in the first place, illicit communications would have been made elsewhere, then I agree. For her. She is careful about such things, a lot of people are not. A subpoena of government e-mails can often yield surprising lack of concern that someone else might read them some day.
My admittedly cynical take is that what we are seeing in this latest scandal are the opening public salvoes of a battle between two entrenched Democrat machines, Obama/Chicago and Clinton, for control of the post-Obama-presidency Democrat party. Lots of money is at stake, not to mention power, prestige, and influence.
That would certainly explain why the story has legs.
PD- I was mostly just musing, but my point is that officials are still going to have private email accounts and use them. How do we monitor that or should we? Doesn’t the NSA have all of these emails anyway?
Steve
I think Piercello may be right. It’s a completely different perspective on how scandals take off or fizzle out: the question should be, “Who benefits?”, not, “Do the voters really care?”
@Modulo Myself
Have you read about it? … [Whitewater]
Some of us were there for the entire sordid event. Compared to President Clinton was treated, the Republicans are having a lovefest with President Obama. They did sh*t to President Clinton that you would not do to a crack whore.
It was Arkansas, and Arkansas is in the South. Whitewater and the cattle futures were payoffs. It is no big deal. Both of these occurred before he was president and before he was running for president.
Then, there was a lawsuit that could not wait until he was out of office. In my opinion, he should have told them he was not going to participate in any lawsuit, and if they held him in contempt, he should have told them he would pardon himself. If they wanted a Constitutional Crisis, they could “bring it on.” He has a lot more tact than I do. That is probably why he was president, and I was not.
Finally, they impeach him over a blow job. Oh wait, it was lying over a blow job because Republicans view lying about extramarital blow jobs or any extramarital sexual activities sacrosanct. No Republican would ever remain in office if he was caught in a sex scandal. Oh, wait …
Now I remember. Extramarital affairs are fine, and they can be hetero or homosexual. You can get caught as many times as you want. You can dump the wife and kids as you deem expedient, but for the love of G*d, never lie about it.
Now, please explain to me how Republicans are being meanies to President Obama.
@Piercello, I don’t think Obama has a machine, which is probably why we’re looking at a Clinton coronation. The more cynical take is that there are simply outsider Democrats that either don’t like Hillary or want a viable alternative. Perhaps the most cynical is the NY Times wants a horse race.
@ PD Shaw,
On the contrary, I would argue that, by necessity, _everybody_ who is active in national politics has built a machine, or at the very least been forced to acquire the backing of one or more existing machines. The only relevant question is which will come out on top.
Rather than restate my argument in full here in Dave’s comments, I’ll just link to it, with his forbearance:
http://cellosophist2.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-dangers-of-runaway-tribalism.html
@Piercello, let me restate my belief then. Bill Clinton created a large tribe within the Democratic Party, or perhaps to some extent subverted an emergent group of center-left moderates that wanted to reform the Party. These are loyal people, or at least not disloyal, and Hillary can count on this tribe.
Obama does not have anything approaching this. If you insist on calling his group a tribe, it’s comparatively a tribelet.
Fair enough. But for every (mumble) number of loyal fans, there are always a few who are looking to advance their own interests, and the Obama camp has shown itself to be masterful at finding such sources and using them to damage its political opponents indirectly, through coordinated media sabotage.
The persistent unfriendly media coverage in the face of the Clinton machine’s known power is the tell. Character assassination is an art, and someone in Obama’s camp (I am assuming; who else would have the clout?) is both ruthless and skilled enough to be very good at it.
I’m not counting the Clintons out, mind you, but I suspect the contest may be more even than you think.
If Obama’s camp is behind this though, what exactly is the motive? Consolidation of their power, yes, but to what end if they don’t have a viable alternative candidate to support this cycle? Or is there a plausible candidate?
The motive is to become the “power behind the throne” in the national Democrat party, the enormously lucrative and influential position the Clintons have held for a couple of decades now.
Follow the money, follow the power. It’s that simple.
The Obama camp doesn’t even have to win the next presidency for the Dems, they just have to dominate the gateway at the right time. In fact it would probably be better for them if they didn’t win.
If I were to play the long game for my own interests, I would see to it (given the current lack of good D candidates) that a weak Republican wins the next presidency. Then, I would do everything possible to blame said R for the accumulated hanging problems, as well as whatever else is sure to unfold, and use that leveraged hysteria to springboard a fresh D into the white house in the _next_ election. That way, you discredit your opponents, solidify your leverage, have time to hand groom another candidate, and rake in lots and lots of money.
Did I mention I am cynical about politics?
Plus if we don’t have a recession by the end of 2016 the likelihood of one setting in by the of the next term is quite high. From a business cycle standpoint we’re already pressing our luck.
Ah Piercello, you exhibit a tangled web of thinking! However, it is one that does make some sense. And, I wonder why people don’t trust government entities anymore.
I doubt this story will persist long enough to be a major factor in the election, but there is a chance it could be a major “own goal” for Clinton if she meets Jeb Bush in the election. I think Jeb would likely compare his compliance with Florida’s sunshine laws with her actions – at least I know I would.
If one were to look for a pattern in Hillary Clinton’s behavior it would not be difficult to find, in retracing some of the highlights of HRC’s professional career. Kim Strassel did just that in a recent WSJ article, in which an excerpt was reprinted in a piece by Forbes.
What a sly one that Mrs. Clinton is in applying the lessons of the past to the present.