|
|
|
|
|
|
by rincebrain
3547 days ago
|
|
|
The primary argument would be one of agency - while I agree that it was a terrible thing to have done, if she neither requested nor sent any (additional)* classified information from that system, it lacks the same kind of agency that a person explicitly taking classified data out of a secured location has. * - additional here meaning that I wouldn't claim it to be deliberate to, say, reply to an email containing classified portions and leaving the classified portions in the reply. |
|
|
I think it's fair to say a bad thing happened (secret documents through insecure channels) because she did a bad thing (setting up an insecure server linked to secure systems). There are multiple failures here and hers, especially considering her leadership[+] position, is one of them. Unfortunately you guys have a choice between two objectively bad candidates.
Good luck.
--
[+] You can't have trickly economics in only one direction.