Ever Held A Security Clearance, Professor Lakoff?

I ask the question rhetorically, because I think the answer is apparent.
'It's not about emails; it's about public communication by a woman’
Well, sort of: it's about the communication of classified secrets in a way that was entirely too public. People have given their lives to protect classified information, and for good reason: other lives frequently depend on it.
FBI Chief James Comey has shown himself to be another bully of the same kind. He has repeatedly talked down to Clinton, admonishing her as a bad parent would a 5-year-old. He has accused her of “poor judgment” and called her use of a private email server “extremely careless.”
With all due respect, she was delighted to receive that scolding in place of the prosecution she deserved. Far from an act of bullying, this was an act of intense protection of her interests by a man whose duty pointed in the other direction. If you've misunderstood the context that badly, I'm not sure why anyone thought it was a good idea to publish an article from you on the subject of this case.
And since it’s a woman, doing what decent women should never do—engaging in high-level public communication—well, there must be something wrong with that, even if we can’t quite find that something. We will invoke the terminology of criminal law to account for our feelings. She’s getting away with treason! Put her in jail! We can’t quite put our fingers on it, but the words sure do make a lot of people feel better, so they must be right.
I'm pretty sure we can put our fingers on it. She treated classified information in a way that violated the law, endangered America's national interests and the lives of Americans charged with protecting it, and she did so for no better reason than that it was convenient for her. That's the kind and generous reading of why she did it. The more likely reason is that she was trying to dodge public records laws, which is a separate crime, in order to conceal the degree to which she was treating her office as a source of income through influence peddling.

It would not be difficult to prove that case to a jury, if we were allowed to go to a jury with it. All we ask is the chance to try.


raven said...

The fact that this mountain of stupid would espouse this opinion shows just how far we have fallen. No doubt his idiocy is widely shared among those who have never had a risk filled moment.

Can anyone think this would have been offered up in 1955, when a significant portion of the population had put their lives on the line?

Anonymous said...

"The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? "

Ummmm, yes, as a matter of fact, I can. Gen. Petraeus comes to mind, as does Scooter Libby. Neither of these men did anything remotely as reckless or as likely to be harmful, as Hillary Clinton. The level of indignant ignorance in this article is too much to take: I only read a little of it.


E Hines said...

It's Time Magazine. How is it possible to take her stuff seriously? It's not even bad satire; it's just inane.

Ummmm, yes, as a matter of fact, I can.

And General James Cartwright.

Eric Hines

Anonymous said...

Folks before I arrived at the hall after I listened to a speech by Peter Thiel

He touches on issues we discuss in the hall, Listen to it! I'm going to listen to it again.