[MOARDONGZPLZ]

I said "what she did was wrong," which is was. I made no claims beyond that. I'm not sure where you're getting anything about my feelings regarding previous people who may have done it. And my feelings on whether things are "overly" classified are irrelevant here. If something is marked classified, there are legal restrictions on its release.

[projectramo]

I didn't assume anything about your "feelings regarding previous people who may have done".

And your feelings regarding over-classification is not irrelevant to whether something is "wrong". Wrong is not the same as legal, which is why there is discretion.

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

I'm not trying to get into an argument, but you specifically said: "If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?"

That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no?

I feel like you're trolling me here.

[projectramo]

Not at all.

I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other.

So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did.

In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.)

So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.

[jrs235]

I fail to see where s/he said they were okay with the predecessors actions. You appear to be making a huge assumption. S/he said what she did was wrong and nothing about predecessors. I would make the assumption that s/he believes the predecessors were wrong too (assuming they did the exact same thing) and not assume that this has something to do with subject of this instance.

[projectramo]

Yeah, I guess that's right. All the other responses to this thread are moving in the same direction. I was also inferring something from the statement.

I don't see that anything was "hand waved" other than it stopped short of prosecution. So, to my ears, that is what he was espousing.

I guess I would expect something specific:

1. Yes, prosecute the previous people as well!

2. Ah, I see. Well I don't believe all SoS since the invention of email should be prosecuted, so in order to be fair, I guess I don't believe she should be as well.

3. I don't believe it was as bad

4. I don't know?

But that is why the question was asked.