This is primarily a meta-argument about how the email scandal accusations are framed.

"It's very likely that the state dept had no mechanism for delivering classified email to smartphones and the only option would be unclassified email."

When Colin Powell stepped up in 2004 the state department didn't have email at all. He used a private mail account through dial up on his personal laptop in his office to do all his emailing in part to show other people how awesome email is and make the case for adopting it.

In his autobiography he talks with pride about successfully making the case to get funding that allowed him to purchase 44,000 internet capable computers so that every person at state could have one:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...il-scandal.html

Colin Powell posted:


    "What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.

    So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.

    But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century."

It's a rather important bit of perspective to realize that when Clinton stepped up in 2008 email was still a rather new thing at State ( it takes awhile to get funding and install 44,000 computers ) and that prior to its adoption all the business done on email was done on private accounts out of band. For example, Powell's demo email account only connected with staff who also had private email accounts since the .gov email system didn't exist yet. People who frame this as if the state department IT was run like a James Bond movie are misinformed. Deliberately so since talking up the maturity/security of their IT allows detractors to make Clinton's actions look more significant/subversive.

Another bit of misleading framing is the implication or claim that Clintons' server was set up after she was appointed SoS. In reality the Clinton family server was set up by Bill after he stepped down around 2001ish. Hillary had her blackberry hooked up to it all during the primary. Setting up a secure email server is a significant endeavor for the layman. By claiming it was done after she stepped up you make listeners suspicious and prime them to accept a devious motive. The truth that she just kept on using the setup she'd been using, otoh, flows much more naturally into Hillary's stated reason, convenience. All her shit was there and why mess with what works? You can juggle two mail boxes ok but juggling two calendars completely defeats the purpose of a calendar. Again, she used it in place of a non-classified .gov email. When she had to use the secure system she went to the secure building and handed over her wireless devices to security to get in and sit at a special secure terminal like everyone else. She hated it just like everyone else. Lastly, her own emails show her asking IT to hook up her blackberry to a .gov account and them saying they couldn't do it.. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-...ure-smartphone/ ). This information is also left out or actively lied about by people pushing a nefarious motives narrative since attempt to use the State system while maintaining the functionality of her system undermines their entire premise.

The last major false frame of the email scandal is the idea that criminal prosecution is something that routinely happens when people mess up with secure material. You get a lot of hyperbolic claims about how much trouble a regular Joe would be if they'd done that. Also a shit ton of quoting snippets of legal statutes and torturing the definition of the word "deliberately". If security agencies criminally prosecuted people for honest mistakes then people would never self report or cooperate with security audits for fear of jail. It is more important that breaches be promptly and honestly reported than to jail people for mistakes. They will fuck you up if you deliberately sell data or deliberately post it to wiki leaks sure. But if you are operating in good faith then jail isn't a realistic outcome even if you "deliberately" took some work home with you the night you got mugged and someone stole your backpack. You didn't intend for the data to get away so that's not the right kind of "deliberately" to get anti-espionage statutes thrown at you.

A minor frame used in all three major frames is trying to make this an elitist thing. Asserting that nobody else uses personal emails when it was actually a common practice or that she is avoiding punishment others would face when in reality punishment would be the exception rather than the rule.

Once you see the tropes and false frames, you can't un-see them.