I’m still trying to figure out whether Hillary Clinton actually did do anything worse with her handling of emails than some of her predecessors, although it is looking like she might have taken it a step further with her exclusive use of a private server. And it certainly does not look good that she refused to talk to investigators in the State Department Inspector General investigation.
The IG report from State has her guilty and states that she, well, lied about her actions. It also claims that when a red flag was raised on her use of a private server those cautioning against it were told to keep their mouths shut.
My question is: why do we have to or why should we take the word of the Inspector General?
I mean we need to consider it, but who says the investigation was not tinged by those trying to cover up their own incompetence or even collusion in the purported misuse of emails.
Still, all of this does nothing to make Mrs. Clinton look good.
I think I wrote early on in all of this that she needed to make a statement on the emerging email scandal, not stonewall it, and then stick to her story. Well I guess so far she is sticking to her story. She is still claiming she did nothing wrong or illegal or even against policy at the time (I think I am correct in that). She does seem to concede that she made a bad call on this one, that is using a private server.
And the problem is that public business is supposed to be conducted via government equipment and software (and that’s a comfort now that I have read that the nation’s nuclear program still uses floppy discs, but that has nothing to do with this, just thought I would add that in). It is necessary for transparency in a democratic (small d) society and for preservation of government records to keep all government business in officials channels of communication. Also there are security concerns when one mixes private and classified information and has it on a private server.
In the end, if her story is just plain false, and if it is apparent that she has just been engaging in a cover-up of misdeeds and/or incompetency, then, well so be it. The public or at least those who might tend to vote for her will make up their own minds and vote accordingly.
And now the buzz is: will the FBI come down on her before the election (or after) and thus force the Justice Department to indict, via public pressure?
Aw, shades of Nixon and Watergate. He won his re-election by a landslide. And then he ended up by being the first president to resign his office when all the lies caught up to him.
When at first we practice to deceive, oh but what a tangled web we weave.
And I am not necessarily anti-Hillary. She’s just hard to love.