In the current frenzy to either bring Hillary Clinton down or hold her up, depending on which side you are on, the public policy implications of her email scandal ("Emailgate") are being ignored: how to prevent government officials from using private rather than government email systems for government business.
Without serious interest from mainstream media, and without billions in campaign funding, the Vermont Senator has been able to generate a nationwide groundswell of enthusiasm. Money can't buy enthusiasm, and money certainly can't buy a person's trust -- Sanders has an abundance of both.
All the GOP or their billionaire candidate have to do is tell voters that Clinton was against gay marriage. All they need to say is that she voted for Iraq and was inclined to accept Keystone. With Bernie Sanders, there are no questions about honesty. There's no scandal. There's only a GOP frightened of facing it's polar opposite.
According to PBS, Bernie Sanders is "gaining against Clinton in early polls."
In contrast to Clinton, Sanders has supported the issue of gay marriage since 2000, vehemently opposed the Iraq War, opposes TPP, wants student loan debt reforms, fights for veterans, and isn't afraid to blast "too big to fail" Wall Street firms.
If Cheney had owned a private email server located in his home and decided (without a third-party auditor) to delete over 30,000 emails deemed "private," how would Americans react?
This controversy is about trust, not the rule of law. If the four steps below are addressed quickly, rather than in a tortured process of lawsuits and awkward press conferences, Americans will quickly forget this scandal and move on to other news.
The Democratic and Republican gristmills got to work last week on Hillary Clinton's "homebrew" email, and the ensuing firestorm underscored an alarming lack of cyber-savvy among the leading players of the 2016 election. It also raised a serious question: Should the Secret Service protect presidential candidates from cyber attacks?