Ballot Boxing: Carelessness-in-chief?

FBI Director James Comey laid out a sweeping case earlier today for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recklessness in using a personal email server to conduct sensitive government business while she was the top foreign policy official for the United States.

Exhibit A: Eight email chains the FBI examined contained top-secret material when they were sent and received. Comey said “no reasonable person” in the position of Clinton or other government employees should have thought it was OK to have those conversations over an unclassified system.

Exhibit B: While the FBI didn’t find evidence that Clinton’s email was hacked by hostile actors, Comey said given the technical savvy of such potential intruders, “we assess we would be unlikely to find such direct evidence.” The FBI did find hostile actors had hacked the private accounts of people Clinton regularly emailed from her personal account.

Still, Comey said the FBI considered Clinton’s actions “extremely careless” but not criminal. The U.S. Department of Justice will make a final decision on that question, but the DOJ has already indicated it would likely follow whatever the FBI recommends.

Clinton has insisted she didn’t intend to break the law, but Comey’s report suggests her actions still created substantial security risks. Do those risks rise to the legal level of “gross negligence”? Comey doesn’t think so, but the DOJ should at least take seriously scores of classified emails sent on an unsecured server possibly hacked by hostile actors.

Voters should take it seriously too. The Clinton campaign released a statement after Comey’s remarks saying it was “glad the matter is now resolved.” But the matter hasn’t been resolved formally by the DOJ, and Clinton hasn’t faced a single question about Comey’s disturbing findings.

Those questions are vexing, and it’s notable that Comey emphasized the FBI isn’t suggesting that “in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

Consider the implications: Clinton is vying for the highest administrative office with some of the highest security clearance in the nation.

Comey also found that the security culture of the U.S. State Department—the agency Clinton ran—“was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

That’s noteworthy, as Clinton now asks the nation to entrust her with building a presidency to handle the most sensitive business in the world—and to wage sophisticated intelligence battles against cyber enemies from rogue nations.

Clinton may have learned from her mistakes, and she may intend to demand the most advanced cyber security protocols available if she’s elected. But the FBI report raises a deeper concern about the way the candidate conducted herself in office. Careless habits often flow from a careless disposition, and it’s worth considering other crucial areas that recklessness feeds.

In such a climate, it’s surprising to consider that a Republican candidate wouldn’t hold a substantial lead in the presidential election. But presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump has reckless tendencies of his own. For example, he’s reckless in his language, accusing a respectable judge of being unfit for office, and suggesting President Obama could be complicit in Islamic terrorism. Those words matter, and they rattle voters trying to decide whether they can trust him.

Trump’s challenge now isn’t just to point out Clinton’s clear recklessness in her conduct, but to also mitigate his own, even if it’s a different kind of carelessness.

Many voters who aren’t diehard for or against either candidate may still be deeply unsettled by their choices. Perhaps they inherently sense what the writer of Proverbs warns: “One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless.”