posted at 6:01 pm on October 21, 2016 by Allahpundit
This is Clintonism in 20 seconds. It’s not just that she doesn’t follow the rules that apply to everyone else, it’s the arrogance in flouting the double standard. She was willing to lecture State Department employees here on good cyber practices when her own recklessness in handing sensitive material ranged from merely disgraceful to outright felonious. It’s like the Clinton Foundation declaring a few months back, under intense scrutiny of its pay-to-play schemes, that it would no longer accept donations from foreign governments — starting after the election, so cut those checks while you can, Saudi Arabia. As a matter of basic ethics, there was no reason to delay cutting off foreign money a moment longer. As a matter of the Clintons’ right to do as they like, though? What other reason do you need?
Here’s what arrogance after a disastrous cybersecurity failure looks like.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign struggled to get the candidate to apologize for using a private email server as secretary of state, recently hacked emails reveal…
“I know this email thing isn’t on the level,” Tanden wrote to Podesta on August 22. “I’m fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty).”
“People hate her arrogant, like her down,” Tanden said. “It’s a sexist context, but I think it’s the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look, I’m sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.”…
“She always sees herself bending to ‘their’ will when she hands over information, etc.,” she said. “But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not the ‘if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t do it.’ A real feeling of – this decision I made created a mess and I’m sorry I did that.”
Why should she apologize for years’ worth of recklessness in mishandling classified information? She knew she’d never be charged for it. That’s what’s important.
It’s telling that the ongoing Wikileaks document dump on Clinton wasn’t a product of her server being hacked but rather a case of her own inner circle following cybersecurity practices so piss poor that the average midwestern grandma is savvy enough by now to avoid them when using the Internet. If Team Hillary cared enough about safeguarding their information to read one 500-word listicle on the subject, they might have avoided the phishing scheme that snared John Podesta. As it is, now we know just how high up the Clintons’ charitable pay-to-play endeavors went:
Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco…
[Huma] Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king…
“This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request,” wrote Abedin. “The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting.”
Jim Geraghty notes that the traditional defense of the Clinton charities accepting gigantic foreign donations is that they’re gifts, not payment for any services rendered. Now here’s Hillary seemingly negotiating a de facto $12 million fee for an appearance in Morocco. (Bill and Chelsea ended up going instead.) What other quid pro quos were arranged in her post-State, pre-presidency career? Look out for the next video coming in 2017, in which President Clinton sternly urges all executive branch employees to avoid taking bribes.