Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before her being selected as candidate.
Also unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups to an unvetted third civilian party with no security access. Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info.
I'm not sure having media push the articles the campaign writes with the promise of greater access is ethical.
Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? IDK. Maybe that's "opposition research"... It's hard to tell where that line is.
... Unless you don't think those things happened.
edit: More downvotes, but all of those things happened. Sorry HN, seeming more like Reddit every day :(
Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)?
>Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info
You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP?
>Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine?
Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work?
I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...
> ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention.
I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy.
Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum.
I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes.
America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.