Here is a working hypothesis about Hillary's email that makes her look very good indeed

[Fumesucker]

With one insignificant private email account and one little server tucked ever so securely away in her bungalow Hillary has managed to unite the Democratic party in the cause of supporting the human right of individuals to have their personal communications kept private from government intrusion.

It is a fierce advocate who will take on the sort of fire and brimstone coming out of the Republican party on the behalf of all Americans who would like to think that they are entitled to privacy in their communications with their family, friends and associates.

We will hear every possible argument against personal privacy and probably a few impossible ones too come out of the Republican party and we will hear the Democrats forcefully respond that personal privacy is a critical component of general human rights.

When this brouhaha is done we will know incontrovertibly that the Democratic party and more importantly the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee is pro privacy, this is the sort of thing that will engage the disaffected to come and vote for Democrats, bold moves that speak to values of liberty and justice.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. One would also need to support equal treatment under law

For swells and proles.

That might be a sticking point.

[Fumesucker]

4. I'm seeing some new fierce advocates for privacy around

That can't be a bad thing.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Why would this be a sticking point?

The courts are already pretty good at distinguishing swells from proles and assigning differential treatment accordingly.

But maybe you're right; after all, the law permits the poor, as well as the rich, to raise the affluenza defense.

[riderinthestorm]

2. That will only work if she comes out strongly against the intelligence agencies crimes

the NSA and CIA's illegal actions could be a real issue if she wanted it to be.

Then your theory would dovetail nicely for Hillary.

Has she ever said anything about the NSA and CIA crimes? Snowden, Drake, or Binney?

[Fumesucker]

5. She's evolving on the subject

I know we are all impatient but these things take time and perspective.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Lol! Well, I figured she's probably pro-NSA.

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

it would only be logical.

Ah well. I was going to give her the benefit of the doubt on this. Privacy for all!!1!!!1! Is actually privacy for her alone.

You do have a good point however, if her handlers can talk her around, it would be a great issue for her to stand behind and a natural way out of this fiasco.

Edited to add, bravo on this OP. I'm getting a giggle as we all try to seriously contemplate your "proposal". It illustrates the nature of this fiasco very well.


(Psst everyone, Fumesucker has a subtle brand of snark and sarcasm if you haven't already figured out in this thread)

[Fumesucker]

9. I thought it an encouraging sign that the Comrade Eddie Must Die crowd is now pro privacy

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[riderinthestorm]

13. Damn, really? Now I've got to go hunting...

[Fumesucker]

15. Here's one example, nothing special just the first one I noticed..

Nothing to see here, move along, move along..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026363584

[riderinthestorm]

16. By the end of the day I'm guessing they'll all have chimed in

SMH.

Calling them the authoritarian bunch really isn't too much of a stretch.

Alas

[Fumesucker]

18. I'm crushed that none of them have embraced my hypothesis

[riderinthestorm]

21. Oh that's why I keep cheerfully bumping this one up

I believe sooner or later Manny and leveymg will get tired on MM's thread and come over here for a laugh...

Til then I'm happy to keep this in the corner of their eye...

Kick!

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Subtle?

Fumie?

Since when?

[Sienna86]

3. Hillary Clinton found nothing redeeming in Edward Snowden's actions

Sorry, but I think she believed in personal privacy for herself but does not see the dangers of NSA intrusion.

[Fumesucker]

7. Clearly her thinking on the right to privacy is evolving

Evolution usually happens in little baby steps, seldom in giant strides.

[Ms. Toad]

8. There is a difference. There would be no justifiable outcry had she established

One e-mail address for private correspondence, and one for her job, turned over the e-mails from the address she used for work - and refused for the one she used for personal correspondence.

The problem was that she intermingled them in a single account - so there is a legitimate public interest in what is in the intermingled account to make sure the correspondence destroyed did not include correspondence the public has a right to.

Yes - she has a right to privacy in her personal correspondence, but not in her state department correspondence. She forfeited the right to privacy in her personal correspondence the moment she intermingled them. This is similar to how I view my use of my work e-mail for private correspondence (which I am permitted to do). I am very careful in selecting which private correspondence I run through that account - because once I intermingle my private correspondence with work correspondence, it is no longer private.

[Fumesucker]

11. In this hypothesis it was a deliberate act to commingle the personal and business

Specifically in order to bring the issue forward in a dramatic fashion with vast amounts of media coverage.

As I argued in a a different thread, this was an eminently predictable consequence of commingling personal and private emails.

[Ms. Toad]

37. You lose the high ground when you deliberately co-mingle private stuff

with business.

Anyone intentionally doing that for the purpose of making a big splash and then arguing privacy rights is a moron. Whatever else I think of Hillary Clinton, she is not a moron - and as an attorney she is well aware of the dire consequences of mingling personal with business

[Fumesucker]

40. You expect the public to understand nuance?

That seems fairly optimistic.

[Ms. Toad]

42. Not much nuance.

You stick your private stuff in your trash can at work and it is no longer your private stuff. Not much nuance there - most not terribly intelligent criminals understand the concept.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. That's it?

We have the reverse of Sophie's Choice. Instead of having the anguished decision of which child do we want to lose we have the unenviable choice of which child do we want to keep: Gross Incompetence or Blatant Illegality? And your hypothesis is we should rally together as a party under whichever banner carries the day.

It is a novel idea, I'll give it that much.

Is the Democratic party so bereft of talent, experience and ideas that this is all we have to fight for / over?

[Fumesucker]

12. No, my hypothesis is about Hillary's motivations

Hillary wanted to provoke this confrontation with the Republicans in order to demonstrate her commitment to the human right of privacy.

Whatever those motivations might be though there certainly seem to be a lot more strong privacy advocates around than there were just a few short weeks ago.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Oh. Well, then, maybe she could also backhand Bill to raise awareness about domestic violence.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. That wouldn't be for the first time, I suspect.

Charming couple.

[aspirant]

34. The Prince and Princess

of Corporatism, let privacy reign for all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Sadly, I have no expectation of privacy on the internet...

Sadly, I have no expectation of privacy on the internet, from the government, from hackers, et cetera.

That being said I don't believe I'm important enough to bother with.

[aspirant]

41. Being unimportant

and no expectation of privacy, please share your full name, address, date of birth, SS # and personal telephone.

It will make you feel better.

[rock]

19. As I have to said before

The government needs to make a clear binary choice, i.e. pick one:
1) (All) politicians have no right to privacy;
2) (All) politicians have the same rights to privacy as a private citizen.
Until that is decided, they have no right to complain.

So do politicians want to give up their right to privacy or just Hillary's?

[Fumesucker]

20. Do you see any difference between "government official" and "politician" and "private citizen"?

Hillary Clinton is no longer a government official but it's clear she's still a politician.

[rock]

22. I do

And the point of my position that the politicians (law-makers) need to decide what the bounderies are for the two positions. Maybe they're for privacy for all, hmmmm?

[Ms. Toad]

38. She forfeited it when she co-mingled her personal correspondence in an account

she was using for government business.

Had she kept them segregated in two separate accounts, no would have any supportable reason to demand access to her personal correspondence.

[B2G]

23. This is satire, right?

[aspirant]

24. Is the Right To Privacy a laughing matter?

[B2G]

25. No, just the 'hypothesis'. Still laughing. nt

[aspirant]

29. So HRC being pro-privacy, anti-NSA spying

is untrue?

[Half-Century Man]

30. This was certainly a legal way to get to the front of the line in public attention

without putting any part of the country at risk.

[aspirant]

31. But isn't the Right to Privacy

risky business these days with all the NSA spying

[KG]

32. this is certainly the nuanced position...

[aspirant]

33. A subtle variation

with common denominators, how spicy.

[mwrguy]

35. "right of individuals to have their personal communications kept private from government intrusion."

State Department emails are not her personal communication.

[aspirant]

36. She's fighting

for the right to privacy that her determination of personal e-mails aren't examined for business e-mails

What a wonderful stance, Pro-Privacy = Anti-NSA Spying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Personal emails = damaging to her personal agenda