SORRY FOR WHAT, HILLARY? Ron Fournier’s National Journal piece excoriates Hillary Clinton for her non-apologetic “apology”:
Six years after seizing control of government email and after six months of denying wrongdoing. Just this week, it took three different interviews in four days for her to beg the puniest of pardons: “I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier.”
You think? By any objective measure, the Democratic presidential front-runner has responded to her email scandal with deflection and deception, shredding her credibiliity while giving a skeptical public another reason not to trust the institutions of politics and government.
An apology doesn’t fix that. An apology also doesn’t answer the scandal’s most important questions.
1. While apologizing in an ABC interview on Tuesday, you said, “What I had done was allowed; it was aboveboard.” You must know by now that while the State Department allowed the use of home computers in 2009, agency rules required that email be secured. Yours was not. . . .
2. If what you did was “aboveboard,” then you wouldn’t object to all executive-branch officials at every level of government and from bothparties storing their email on private servers—out of the public’s reach. Tell me how that wouldn’t subvert the federal Freedom of Information Act and “sunshine laws” in every state?
3. If what you did was “allowed,” then you wouldn’t object to all executive-branch officials at every level of government and from both parties using secret servers to shield themselves from legislative oversight. Wouldn’t that undermine the legislative branch’s constitutional authority? Wouldn’t it lead to more political corruption? . . .
9. Ever hear of Thomas Drake? He’s the former senior National Security Agency official indicted under the Espionage Act for keeping an agency email printout at his home that was not marked as classified. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Why do you and your aides keep suggesting that it matters whether or not your emails were marked classified? . . .
The whole thing is worth reading– all 19 questions. Wouldn’t it be nice if a mainstream reporter actually asked such questions? But we know that would never happen, as evidenced by veteran reporter Andrea Mitchell’s admission yesterday that she was afraid of pushing Clinton on the server issue for fear that Clinton would cut short her interview. One can only push the monarch so far, after all.