2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy You Actually Should Care About Hillary Clinton's Damn Emails
Why You Actually Should Care About Hillary Clinton's Damn EmailsMike Pearl
Vice
Jason is the guy who sued the State Department for access to Clinton's emails earlier this year, and continues to be one of the best people to turn to for up-to-the-minute coverage of the scandal. He has a whole community of avid readers who care about what he abbreviates the "HRC emails." So when Sanders implored American voters—and journalists—to just drop the email subject altogether, I thought I'd ask Jason for his take.
VICE: Hey Jason. Why do you give a shit about Hillary Clinton's emails?
Jason Leopold: I filed a request for all of her emails because I wanted to gain insight into how she conducted herself as secretary of state, and how that would inform the public as to how she may be as president. That would go for any candidate who is running for office.
"Mostly," but not all, right? Hasn't some of the content been interesting?
We've seen what her position on Afghanistan, and on issues related to Pakistan's role in combatting al Qaeda. She was sort of on the fence about this big troop surge, which was a key moment in Obama's presidency in late 2009.
So how does an email about that translate into news?
The emails are insightful because she really didn't know what to do. She looked to all these outside advisors. She wanted to know how Carl Levin voted on the Iraq surge. What the email shows is that this is a person who was very concerned at the time about how her decision—her important, important policy decision—would reflect upon her personally, and how it would impact her standing with the public. That's important.
Has anything else been a big deal?
We should know that when issues about the CIA's torture program came up in 2009 and 2010, she was advised by Sydney Blumenthal to never ever discuss publicly. And for the most part she hasn't. These are things that you get from actually sitting down, and fucking reading every goddamn motherfucking email.
How do we know there won't be a big bombshell?
If you worked at the State Department, and you left, and I asked for your documents, they would review it, and maybe discuss some of it with you. What happened here is that Hillary and her staff reviewed all of it before turning it over to the State Department, deciding what was personal, and deciding what was not for public consumption and destroying it. That was hugely troubling. That's not how these issues related to preservation of records work.
That was the original issue with secrecy, right? Can you remind us what the problem was in a nutshell?
When you file a request to any government agency for emails on an individual that works outside of the White House—which is not subject to requests—usually they say "We're gonna process your request," or "We can't find records." For years, they didn't say that. We just didn't know what the issue was.
So you might say the scandal is that it's now impossible for there to be a scandal?
I believe that it's a scandal for different reasons than politicians believe it's a scandal. It's an absolutely legitimate scandal, for reasons that have to do with preservation of records, and the thwarting of the Freedom of Information Act, and bypassing the Federal Records Act. It's a rightful scandal.
Related:
Kevin Drum: I Doubt That Hillary Clinton Used a Private Email Server to Evade FOIA
Court Rules Clinton's Private Email Backups Shielded from FOIA
Clinton: Did not use personal e-mail server to evade FOIA
Robert Scheer: Bernie Blew It
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dsc
(52,161 posts)The emails are insightful because she really didn't know what to do. She looked to all these outside advisors. She wanted to know how Carl Levin voted on the Iraq surge. What the email shows is that this is a person who was very concerned at the time about how her decision—her important, important policy decision—would reflect upon her personally, and how it would impact her standing with the public. That's important.
Carl Levin wasn't some popular celebrity. He was a respected liberal expert on foreign affairs. Why shouldn't she want to know what his opinion was? And how does that speak to what the public would think of her actions or that she cared one way or the other what that would be?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)concerned about how her decision would effect her public standing than whether the decision was the correct one.
Obviously, she should consult others, but the email shows she cared more about how it would effect her than how it would effect the people on the ground who actually have to live with the decision.
dsc
(52,161 posts)no mention at all is made of the public. None. She was asking how an expert voted.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)facts or real incite to back it up.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Haven't we been told over and over again that this email issue is just trumped up crap from the Republicans, yet it was Jason Leopold who originally sued for access?
I didn't know that (I admit, I've only started paying attention to this story once I learned how compromised her server was. I, too, considered all this crap Republican parlor tricks).
Leopold is hardly a right-wing nut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Leopold
Admittedly, he was wrong on the Rove indictment, but I think that was as a result of a misinformed source. Unfortunately, it happens. I've trusted sources who were right on many, many things in the past only to be wrong about something once, too. But, taken as a whole, his record of investigative reporting has been very good.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)classified was stored or passed on no servers were hacked. You continue to beat a dead horse only to attack Hillary or to support Bernie, a fucking waste of time because it has no effect on any outcome.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Now the outrage is over Sanders supporting the end of RW propaganda against Clinton, designed for only one thing?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)It's about whether or not it's acceptable for high ranking government officials to use private communications systems to avoid archiving and FOIA requests. If we replaced the name of Mrs. Clinton in the story with that of a prominent Republican, would that elicit concern?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the same time, in your hypothetical, and were a party mired in deception and deceit, per your hypothetical.
Where have you been,the last 6 years?
BGazhi was hatched by the same party, no? But they are still to be trusted or even acknowledged as capable of not being deceivers and liars because....???
And is the mass media for or against Clinton, given the past 6 years versus the last 3 days after one debate, that is all very confusing?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)If someone had filed a FOIA request for some member of the Bush administration's emails, and the response from a court was, "sorry they were on a private server," you'd be ok with that?
We're adults and we can handle separating this issue from the Benghazi circus.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)You are carrying the RW water, I consider any water they touch contaminated.
"I am sick of hearing about the emails"!
Who famously said that?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I do think there's a legitimate scandal here about government transparency and I trust that people are able to make a distinction between that and the Benghazi nonsense.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)running against any republican in the general since it would mean that the GOP would basically be running this country for the next decade or so.
Then I wake up, look at the polls and realize it was all a nightmare.
jfern
(5,204 posts)It was the evil empire when Bill Clinton visited in 1969.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It was a business trip, not a honeymoon. Maybe you honeymooned with a group of the people you work with, but damned few do.
