It is widely known that various high-ranking national security officials from President Trump’s administration exploited a publicly accessible, non-governmental messaging application to devise strategies for the Yemen raids. Interestingly enough, the chief editor of The Atlantic magazine was inadvertently added to the conversation, thus becoming privy to details one might call acutely confidential. Certain chunks of the discourse were preset to be removed automatically, seemingly violating federal statues related to records preservation. As the details of this episode have emerged, they’ve only escalated in their capacity to shock.
Upon reaching the conclusion of the narrative, one struggles to prioritize their feelings of disgust – should they be more upset about the carelessness, ineptitude, peril, or the seemingly light-hearted use of prayer emojis before the commencement of a military strike? But there’s yet another entry to this register: pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
The Trump administration declared that no classified intelligence was circulated within the group discussion, however, The Atlantic, while redacting only the name of a member who works for the C.I.A, printed almost the entire conversation. If the situation was concerning before, it had surely escalated to alarming. Remarkably in Trump’s realm, regulations seemingly serve to govern everyone else, but them.
It seems impossible not to draw comparisons with the infamous Hillary Clinton email controversy of 2016, which is frequently cited (‘But her emails!’). While she was Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton’s choice to operate some of her emails through a personal server was seen as a breach of protocol and possible security risk, although one deemed insignificant by the State Department eventually.
However, the verdict from the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, after concluding a three-year-long investigation into the matter, was that there was no substantial evidence to suggest any willful or systematic mishandling of confidential data. Despite this, the Clinton email incident prevailed as a dominant topic for more than a year, frequently gracing prime-time cable news segments and newspaper headlines, including the one you are currently reading.
Close to the 2016 elections, James Comey, the F.B.I. director then, publicly announced the reopening of the investigation into her emails. This breaking news story once again occupied front pages across the country. This chain of events could have been a critical factor influencing Mrs. Clinton’s loss in the election.
The atmosphere at the Republican party’s 2016 convention was charged with shouts of ‘Lock her up!’ symbolizing a strong stance against Mrs. Clinton. Signs brandishing the same slogan were seen everywhere. Then Florida’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, also expressed her opinion about Mrs. Clinton’s alleged disinterest in adhering to the law and her supposedly undeserving nature of a security clearance.
Ms. Bondi made her position abundantly clear by joining the crowd in their popular refrain, declaring ‘Lock her up’. It was obvious that she too found a certain satisfaction in this sentiment. These events unfolded amid widespread speculation and heated debates, laying bare the complex dynamics of politics, where accusations are commonplace and providing a stark reminder of the high stakes involved.