Posted by | November 4, 2016 11:07 | Filed under: Opinion Politics

Matthew Yglesias at Vox puts in in perspective. If you agree with Hillary Clinton on police (and if you were a Bernie supporter, you should), vote your conscience and ignore the noise.

…email-related talk has dogged Clinton throughout the election and it has influenced public perceptions of her in an overwhelmingly negative way. July polling showed 56 percent of Americans believed Clinton broke the law by relying on a personal email address with another 36 percent piling on to say the episode showed “bad judgments” albeit not criminality.

…emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election — overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way. ..

Now, is it possible that Clinton’s legal team simply decided to entirely disregard the law and delete work-related emails?

In some sense, sure. But there’s no evidence that this happened. Generally speaking, in life we assume it would be moderately difficult to hire a well-known law firm to destroy evidence for you without someone deciding to do the right thing and squeal.

Besides which, it would be almost comically easy to catch Clinton in the act of systematically destroying relevant emails. The vast majority of the work-related email correspondence of an incumbent secretary of state, after all, is going to be correspondence with other government employees. Maybe she shoots a note to the Pentagon about Benghazi, or circulates ideas for a speech draft with her communications team. Any message like that, by definition, would exist on a government server as well as on her private one. This means it would be fully accessible via FOIA and also means that if Clinton’s copy were found to not be in the pile of emails she turned over, she’d be caught red handed…

The key point here is that using a email account would not have changed anything. When US government officials have conversations about classified matters, they are not supposed to use email. They are supposed to use special secure channels.

Nonetheless, mistakes happen in part because classification standards are vague and ever-changing. Technically speaking, forwarding a Washington Post article detailing things revealed by Edward Snowden could constitute an improper discussion of classified matters.

As FBI Director James Comey concluded, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton over this matter. Almost all of the relevant statutes require an intent to mishandle classified information in order to bring a prosecution, a standard that Clinton’s conduct clearly does not meet…

Clinton broke no laws according to the FBI itself. Her setup gave her no power to evade federal transparency laws beyond what anyone who has a personal email account of any kind has. Her stated explanation for her conduct is entirely believable, fits the facts perfectly, and is entirely plausible to anyone who doesn’t simply start with the assumption that she’s guilty of something.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

  • arc99

    “”…emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. “””

    Just like the notion that the media is “liberal” is bullshit….

    The corporate media carries water for every right wing talking point that comes down the pike. Hillary’s emails are just the latest, most prominent example.

    • oldfart

      True dat,
      If the MSM truly WAS liberal one would see,
      e-mails, fraud and rape in equal measure.

  • Suzanne McFly

    Sadly, the only people who will believe or even read the article are people already voting for her IMO.

  • ||| Jus’speakin’th’truth |||

    “… overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people
    a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees…”

    Only one? Really???

    • Suzanne McFly

      One is skewed due to accusations that have occurred over the last 30 years and yet there has not been anything in these findings to charge anyone with and crimes. The other has given a bad impression of himself which is due to his own words and actions which can be seen and heard every single day. Still confused?