Compare And Contrast: Treatment Of Thomas Drake & Hillary Clinton For Having Classified Info

from the double-standards dept

The Washington Post has a big story delving deep into how the Hillary Clinton email scandal happened, noting that Clinton just didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, even as the NSA told her repeatedly that it wasn't secure and there were serious risks involved. What's amazing, from the story, is how much everyone was focused on the BlackBerry side of things, and sort of skipped over the fact that she was using a private email account with the server set up in her basement. The WaPo article notes that for the first few months in her job as Secretary of State, the email server didn't even have basic encryption tools enabled. All of that is a travesty, and you should read the whole article to understand the issue more, but I wanted to focus in on a related issue: the high court/low court treatment of Hillary Clinton as compared to others. In particular, the situation with Thomas Drake, the NSA whistleblower.

Almost five years ago, we wrote about the Thomas Drake case, highlighting some key passages in an astoundingly thorough New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer, which ripped the government's case to shreds. That long article is also worth reading, but for this story, the key points are that Drake was getting on some people's nerves by complaining about the decisions the NSA was making in the wake of 9/11 -- moving towards using an expensive computer system that would suck up everyone's data, while he and others had worked on a much more cost-efficient system that would get better results and had built-in protections for civil liberties. Drake blew the whistle and provided information to a Congressional oversight staffer.

When a big NY Times investigative piece came out later revealing the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, and the NSA tried to figure out who had leaked, they raided Drake's home. He hadn't been the leaker, but after ruffling through basically everything, they found that Drake had kept a few marginal classified documents:
Then, in April, 2008, the F.B.I. told him that someone important wanted to meet with him, at a secure building in Calverton, Maryland. Drake agreed to the appointment. Soon after he showed up, he says, Steven Tyrrell, the prosecutor, walked in and told him, “You’re screwed, Mr. Drake. We have enough evidence to put you away for most of the rest of your natural life.”

Prosecutors informed Drake that they had found classified documents in the boxes in his basement—the indictment cites three—and discovered two more in his e-mail archive.
The "classified" information in question was totally meaningless. There was unclassified stuff he had kept because he had given it to the Inspector General as part of his whistleblowing and had been told to keep it. And there was a schedule of meetings that was marked unclassified, but which the government claimed should have been classified. And another document that was declassified soon after:
“They had made me into an enemy of the state just by saying I was,” Drake says. The boxes in his basement contained copies of some of the less sensitive material that he had procured for the Inspector General’s Trailblazer investigation. The Inspector General’s Web site directs complainants to keep copies. Drake says that if the boxes did, in fact, contain classified documents he didn’t realize it. (The indictment emphasizes that he “willfully” retained documents.) The two documents that the government says it extracted from his e-mail archive were even less sensitive, Drake says. Both pertained to a successor to Trailblazer, code-named Turbulence. One document listed a schedule of meetings about Turbulence. It was marked “unclassified/for official use only” and posted on the N.S.A.’s internal Web site. The government has since argued that the schedule should have been classified, and that Drake should have known this. The other document, which touted the success of Turbulence, was officially declassified in July, 2010, three months after Drake was indicted. “After charging him with having this ostensibly serious classified document, the government waved a wand and decided it wasn’t so classified after all,” Radack says.
Because of those five documents, none of which ever should have been classified and one of which clearly was not... the Justice Department threatened Drake with thirty-five years in jail.
Drake was no longer charged with leaking classified documents, or with being part of a conspiracy. He is still charged with violating the Espionage Act, but now merely because of unauthorized “willful retention” of the five documents. Drake says that when he learned that, even with the reduced charges, he still faced up to thirty-five years in prison, he “was completely aghast.”
Okay. Got that? Thirty-five years because he "retained" five documents the government claims were classified.

Now, back to Clinton:
State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.

Before the server received a digital certificate marking the use of standard encryption, Clinton and her aides exchanged notes touching on North Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, military advisers, CIA operations and a briefing for Obama.
Right. So Drake gets his home raided and faces 35 years for "retaining" 5 documents. And Clinton appeared to run classified documents through her unprotected home email server pretty much all the time. Now, it's likely that a lot of those 2093 emails involved "overclassification" situations that are all too common in government. And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.

I'm just pointing out the seeming difference in treatment that someone like Drake gets, as a known "whistleblower" on government waste, as compared to Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination and a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

Others have certainly noticed this double standard as well. Last summer, the ACLU called out this seeming unequal treatment, as did the Daily Beat, which referred to it as a double standard. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has -- quite reasonably -- gone even further, in pointing to Clinton's own comments on another situation involving classified emails: the case against Chelsea Manning. That involved the leaking of classified State Department cables while Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton condemned Manning and insisted that the State Department had to be able to keep communications protected. And, yes, she said this at a time when her own emails were being run off a server in her home's basement.

Who knows what's going to happen with Clinton's email situation, but at the very least, the differential treatment she's received so far, compared to whistleblowers, should highlight just how ridiculous the treatment was for those whistleblowers. And it should reinforce the nature of the "high court/low court" distinction among the politically powerful. They get to avoid the kind of legal troubles the "little people" deal with.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anon, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:46am

    What about Valerie Plame?

    You picked one strong example of the government throwing the book at someone having classified data.

    What about Valerie Plame? George Bush pardoned the leaker for political reasons.


    And in the case of General Petraeus, he got off with a slap on the wrist for revealing classified data to a reporter.


    I almost feel like you picked the worst possible case, because you're a Bernie Sanders supporter who can't stand the idea that Clinton isn't in jail yet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:11am

      Re: What about Valerie Plame?

      It's funny how in being critical of the article you seem to just be proving it's point, that being that if you've got the right connections(political and rank respectively from your examples) you aren't punished at all, but if you don't, then like Drake you don't get the book you get the entire library thrown at you.

      Also, you seem to have missed this part in your haste to comment:

      Now, it's likely that a lot of those 2093 emails involved "overclassification" situations that are all too common in government. And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.

      I'm just pointing out the seeming difference in treatment that someone like Drake gets, as a known "whistleblower" on government waste, as compared to Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination and a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.


      And this part...

      Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has -- quite reasonably -- gone even further, in pointing to Clinton's own comments on another situation involving classified emails: the case against Chelsea Manning. That involved the leaking of classified State Department cables while Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton condemned Manning and insisted that the State Department had to be able to keep communications protected. And, yes, she said this at a time when her own emails were being run off a server in her home's basement.

      Calling out hypocrisy and double-standards is always a good idea. Even if Mike was saying Clinton deserved to be in jail for her actions with regards to classified documents, which doesn't seem to be the case, given her past stance to 'mishandling' sensitive documents it would simply be applying her own words against her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      AricTheRed (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:17am

      Re: What about Valerie Plame?

      I find your position offensive.

      I am an American that can't stand the idea that Hillary isn't in jail yet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:59am

      Re: What about Valerie Plame?

      And because Clinton is such an insider from the Obama administration, IF (and that's a big if) the USAG was somehow pressured into bringing charges against her for this Obama would likely immediately pardon her to make it go away, in the same way Ford pardoned Nixon as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:22am

    And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.

    She shouldn't need to; she and Bill have both done more than enough other things that, if everyone was treated equally under the law, they ought to both be put away for the rest of their natural lives and then some, long before the prosecutors even start looking at this case!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon (the same one as above), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:28am

    It just strikes me as Dog Whistle politics.


    "I'm not saying Clinton should be in jail, but this guy with two pieces of classified data is in jail. Just saying."

    Vs

    "I'm not saying Clinton is corrupt. I'm just saying anyone who takes wall street money is corrupt, and is partially responsible for the financial melt down. And that Clinton takes money from wall street."


    The Thomas Drake case is 5 years old at this point, so Mike isn't reporting on current news. Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up.

    It has been my observation that the classified email indictment scandal is only interesting to Bernie Bros, who pretty much need Clinton to be in jail for her to lose the nomination at this point.


    This is also not the first time we've had an article on techdirt criticizing Clinton for the email scandal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      The Thomas Drake case is 5 years old at this point, so Mike isn't reporting on current news. Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up.

      This is also not the first time we've had an article on techdirt criticizing Clinton for the email scandal.
      Just because a case is old doesn't mean it isn't worth remembering, and just because it's been written about before doesn't mean it's not still wrong.
      It has been my observation that the classified email indictment scandal is only interesting to Bernie Bros, who pretty much need Clinton to be in jail for her to lose the nomination at this point.
      I fail to see how name calling brings any benefit to the conversation. It's entirely possible to have unfavorable opinions of Clinton-as-presidential-candidate without being a supporter of Sanders.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:08am

      Re:

      It's funny you think this is all about the Sanders campaign when Sanders himself famously said he was "tired of hearing about your damn emails" and everyone knows the calls for her to be put in jail, for whatever reason (pick one, as there are many), originated with the Republicans long before Sanders ever started a campaign.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      Old news does not make it wrong news or invalid for comparison.

      And the comparison to Snowden is apples and oranges idiot... Snowden performed a public service to his nation... as in one of the Last Standing patriots known to the public at large.

      Maybe you need to got back and suck on Hillary's slong a bit longer, you obviously have not had your protein for the day.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      Also, I am reasonably sure Mike has an opinion on the presidential race, however chooses not to use the site to voice that opinion, as he likely sees it as generally off topic for the site which is very different from the "dog whistle politics" that you accuse him of engaging in. Please point us to a link on the site where he has endorsed a candidate. In other words: Citation please or STFU.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:59am

        Re: Re:

        Just read the comments.

        Everyone here wants to get on Bernie's dick.

        Mike, are you brave enough to come to the comments and deny that you're a Bernie Bro?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 12:03pm

          Bernie's dick.

          Whose dick would you rather be on?

          Frankly, I'm still sore over the lack of hope and change or even transparency. I think Bernie's going to flop once in office like the rest of them.

          Only he looks the least evil of our options.

          Feel free to figure out how to get someone in place that will serve the people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:15pm

            Re: Bernie's dick.

            You could be right but history doesn't indicate that with Bernie. He's been preaching the same sermon for 25 years even when the general public wouldn't have even considered listening to him. He's been pretty consistent and seems to have run the cleanest campaign I've seen anyone run in a very long time. Somehow I get the feeling he's different.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:34pm

              Re: Re: Bernie's dick.

              The way I see it, Bernie may not be able to accomplish all of the changes that he wants to implement due to the fact that Congress makes the laws not the President. He freely admits that. But what he can do is appoint a USAG that will prosecute the corporate bastards responsible for the shit that wrecked the economy and rig the system against everyone else and that would be a good start.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 5:06pm

              Re: Re: Bernie's dick.

              I would like to see you right, and would offer to eat my hat if that would increase the odds.

              But at this point, I imagine that Bernie could only stay in office by being a stooge to some benefactors.

              But then Chester A. Arthur was totally owned and then got a conscience in the presidency. So miracles are not unheard of.

              I would be joyous to be surprised.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mike, are you brave enough to come to the comments and deny that you're a Bernie Bro?


          I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders at all. I think his understanding of economics is warped, and that he would not be a particularly good President. His view of economics is historical and does not understand the current industrial environment in the slightest.

          Why you think this article has anything to do with Sanders is beyond me.

          If it hasn't been made clear already, I am not a fan or a supporter of any major Presidential candidate on either side of the Republican/Democratic debate.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sure, I openly support him. But comments like mine and others do not have anything to do with whether Mike does or not. Your contention was that Mike does and was trying to trash Hillary because he does which you I asked you to support. Point to an article or a comment BY MIKE where he endorsed a candidate in this race.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      "It has been my observation that the classified email indictment scandal is only interesting to Bernie Bros"

      Could that be caused by your obvious bias, making you an unreliable observer?

      "Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up."

      You are more than welcome to write your own articles on your own blog to make these points. The Drake case highlights how the system abuses those they feel betrayed them making claims that they then abandon when it is convenient. One might even make a case for how this undermines the legal system with uneven enforcement of the law.

      Perhaps the flaw is you can't bear to hear any discussion of the politician you support without assuming that it is a hit piece out to destroy her, rather than pointing out the huge gulf between the treatment of people who did very similar things.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re:

        10/10 shitpost Bernie Bro. Would shit post again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Apr 2016 @ 7:11am

      Re:

      This reminds me of the Hidden Brain episode about empathy. They discussed the issue of tribalism, and the tendency of members of a tribe to perceive themselves as having been injured, particularly at the hands of the enemy tribe. This guy seems to be in the Hillary tribe, so he sees any criticism of Hillary as coming from the Bernie tribe because they're his enemy right now.

      Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up.

      He was trying to draw a contrast, so it would make no sense to compare Drake to another whistle blower who had the book thrown at him. You might hate to acknowledge it, but there are valid reasons to criticize Clinton (which really is not even the point of this article) that have nothing to do with the presidential campaign.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:35am

    Let's see...One person wanted to expose problems and one wanted to hide problems.
    Yeah, let's fuck the guy doing the right thing...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    musterion (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:36am

    Laws are for little people.

    Hillary the grifter is not a little person.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:59am

      Re: Laws are for little people.

      Nope, and you will find no shortage of un-American citizens that are happy for her spit on the law as long as she does things they like.

      If you vote for Hillary, then you have absolutely NO STANDING to ever challenge or talk trash about another corrupt politician regardless of their political party.

      And sweet sweet irony it would be if you were to suffer under a candidate you hate that caused you Financial or Legal pain with the same corrupt style of government that Hillary uses.

      Regardless of your Party affiliation... you must reject corruption period, even if the 'other guy' wins.

      I have been trying to explain this concept to the repukes for some time... still not sure it is sinking in with the thought of Cruz or Trump being viable candidates... however the rest are far worse and more corrupt than these two from the immediate looks of it.

      Either way. Clinton/Bernie Cruz/Trump... going to need to hold you nose while you vote cause they all stink like Dog, Horse, & Bull shit all mixed in together.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:28am

        Let us clarify this:

        Americans don't vote for anybody.

        They vote against the greater evil.

        If it comes down to Hillary and Trump, are you going to vote for a third party?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JoeCool (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 4:16pm

          Re: Let us clarify this:

          I've voted third party almost my entire (voting) life, and never had a candidate win. At least I can hold my head high and blame both parties for the problems. All you people voting for the LESSER of two evils? You're the problem. Don't vote for evil. PERIOD.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            klaus (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 5:37am

            Re: Re: Let us clarify this:

            I sincerely wish that election ballots the world over would come with a "None of the Above" option. We're always told that voting is of the utmost importance, and it is, but there has to be a way to let the political system know that the current crop of candidates is just not up to snuff.

            I don't envy the USA at this minute...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 7:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Let us clarify this:

              Argentina actually does this. In their political system, every citizen is required to vote on Election Day--with a few very narrow exemptions--but it is a valid option to to votar en blanco (cast a blank ballot), which is seen as a protest vote.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 11:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Let us clarify this:

              As Mason Wheeler notes, you have the option to abstain, write in a third party or even no confidence. As much as I've pushed in the poll circuits to raise awareness of this option, most United States voters are not aware of it.

              The problem is that we're forced to vote against the worst of them by voting for the other guy.

              And the problem is we've had a chain of obvious choices to not have in office since 2008. (Though in 2008 proper, it was McCain's running mate Palin that was the spoiler).

              And sadly, having The Bad Choice running against The Right Choice has made for really poor Right Choice candidates.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scott (profile), 31 Mar 2016 @ 3:09pm

            Re: Re: Let us clarify this:

            Question...did you vote in 2000? If so, you should possibly retract that head position. I can only imagine how different our world would be had people such as yourself hadnt died on your cross and took the rest with you.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 31 Mar 2016 @ 8:39pm

            First Past The Post

            JoeCool you might want to get yourself briefed on first-past-the-post elections and why how they are problematic. CGP Grey has a good one that explains the inevitable two-party system, defensive voting and how third parties become spoilers.

            A paraphrase of Donald Rumsfeld I'm fond of: You build a civilization with the people you have, not the people you wish you had.

            Curse the people all you want for their idiocy, their ignobility, their disinterest in civics, their lack of self awareness regarding their own best interests, or their susceptibility to demagogy. They're the same shlubs that every other nation works with. And we have to get people to govern themselves despite themselves.

            That may not entirely be possible, but we can get closer than we are. Sadly, the US Constitution, for all its strengths is too difficult to adapt to new science. The two party system is probably here to stay until the nation fragments.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Let us clarify this:

          I sure am, because of a simple calculus: I think that both Trump and Clinton are about equally bad for the nation. In very different ways of course (and several of the same ways).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ANON, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:36am

    Obvious Issues

    I think the problem is simple - prosecutors shold not be allowed to pile on the threats (think Aaron Schwarz). I read a discussion where it was mentioned that the system in the UK is very simple - when they make a plea bargain offer for a lighter sentence, the prosecutor cannot ask for more than 50% more than that at trial. 6 months vs. 9 months, or 10 years vs. 15 years - the difference is worthwhile for a person who considers themselves guilty and knows they've been caught to take the deal; but not such a big difference that a person who thinks they can win, or that they are innocent, will still try to fight the charges instead of giving up and pleading guilty (or committing suicide) in despair).

    As for Hillary - if anyone here is old enough to remember the crap that flew her way 16-plus years ago for just being an active first lady, and even for being the victim of a wayward husband... I'm not surprised she did not trust the Washington establishment to safeguard her personal correspondence, would rather have direct and total control over her email server. The real question is why nobody around her told her this was a worse idea if it really was illegal?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Apr 2016 @ 7:14am

      Re: Obvious Issues

      I'm not surprised she did not trust the Washington establishment to safeguard her personal correspondence, would rather have direct and total control over her email server.

      She can do whatever she wants with her personal correspondence. This was about official State Department communications.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 29 Mar 2016 @ 12:39pm

    Cold reality

    I must give Hillary Clinton praise, she went from a woman who couldn't satisfy her husband. To an individual who messed up every aspect of classification and cyber security for her job, to an individual who is running for president of the United States. WTF is wrong with this picture. Time to move to Canada.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:07pm

      Presidential candidates

      Romney was the executive of a company that used corporate law to wreck large swaths of the US economy for its own gain, usually by buying up companies, taking out huge loans in the company name, keeping the money and then selling out, leaving the company to go bankrupt (which the shareholders and taxpayers footed).

      So rather than being incompetent, he was just willfully malicious.

      Feel free to look around for a candidate that might do some good. I was such a fool, I thought we had that in Obama.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 2:27pm

    "...Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination..."

    NOT. Nobody wants surströmming-crotch running the country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2016 @ 2:13am

    Have a heart Hilary is just dead broke after all. She only has multi millions instead of the billions she needs just to get by.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 30 Mar 2016 @ 8:51am

    Know what's depressing?

    If you just put the current top presidential candidates in jail and started over, the future would look so much brighter.

    That's what money does to politics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2016 @ 10:02am

    It is what it is

    Clinton == Scandals

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scott (profile), 31 Mar 2016 @ 3:05pm

    Who Do You Trust?

    There has been so much bad reporting about this email server its hard to know WTF to believe. Just this week the WAPO reports that over 150 FBI special agents are working the case, which of course all media outlets ran with only to retract it 2 days later as inaccurate. Of course putting it out there with a much less sensationally placed retraction doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence on ANY of this reporting. The NYT claimed a criminal investigation only to retract it. Similar events have happened all over the press. We are talking about someone who for 30 years has had to fight allegations that have been false been humiliated by a whitewater investigation that could only produce Monica Lewinsky?!?
    While I think the treatment of Mr Drake is outrageous and should never have transpired that way...this is a real apples/oranges comparison...not particularly worthy of Techdirt IMO. FYI...I support Bernie, but I think these things need to be fair. We really dont know whats going on with this email crap...almost anything you read should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I've read that the logs on her server state it was never hacked (politico)...and I find that just as hard to believe...but again, there is know way for me to know, nor anyone else out there who says otherwise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Apr 2016 @ 7:17am

      Re: Who Do You Trust?

      While I think the treatment of Mr Drake is outrageous and should never have transpired that way...this is a real apples/oranges comparison..

      Yeah, that was the point. The two were treated very differently.

      I support Bernie, but I think these things need to be fair.

      This is not about Sanders or the campaign.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scott (profile), 1 Apr 2016 @ 11:01am

        Re: Re: Who Do You Trust?

        Actually, the point was trying to be made that they should not be treated differently. My point is that they are not remotely the same and should not be considered the same way. The second statement was to counter "Hillary Shill" type replies. I dont think Mrs Clinton gets fair treatment in the press. I think that is easily backed up by my original comment

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Apr 2016 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Who Do You Trust?

          My point is that they are not remotely the same and should not be considered the same way.

          As in, what Clinton did (knowingly handle sensitive/classified materials on an open email system for years) was much worse than what Drake did (keep a handful of classified documents that probably shouldn't have been classified at the order of the investigator)? Or something else?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 6 Apr 2016 @ 8:08am

    The problem of course

    Is that she could not control what OTHER PEOPLE sent to her so her position is ludicrous. I don't know why the reporters don't bring this up as Point One, Two and Three.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.