Apologies aren’t answers to these 19 questions Clinton must answer. (Laura Cavagnaugh AFP/Getty)
September 9, 2015
“I’m sorry about that,” Hillary Rodham Clinton said 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 credibility 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. Just nine months into your term, new regulations required that your emails be captured on department servers. You stashed yours on a home-brewed system until Congress found out. Why not admit you violated policy? Why do you keep misleading people?
2. If what you did was “aboveboard,” then you wouldn’t object to all executive-branch officials at every level of government and from both parties 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?
Parsing Clinton: What Is She Hiding?
Her slippery defense of the email scandal requires a Clintonologist. I volunteer.
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?
4. If what you did became a nationwide precedent, historians would be left with exponentially less archival material to explain the actions of political leaders. You would have helped to erase the public memory. OK with that?
To read expanded column, click here.