This story is so big that even the usually Hillary-loving New York Times, and the Today Show – which usually does just about everything short of picking out furniture with Hillary Clinton – had to make it a lead story today.
Here are the first two paragraphs of Michael S. Schmidt’s Page 1 article:
Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario – short of nuclear winter – where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Amazing, isn’t it? Even with this overtly damning evidence, the first paragraph says Clinton “may have” violated federal requirements —- before the second paragraph tells us that preserving emails on department servers is “required by the Federal Records Act.
Note to writer Schmidt and the Times editors – if federal law requires her to do it, and she didn’t do it, that’s not a “may have violated federal requirements”, that’s a DID violate them.
Now: why would Hillary Clinton do this? When I think of what possible reasons there are, only three words come to mind: ignorant, stupid and nefarious.
I certainly do not consider Hillary Clinton an ignoramus.
I certainly do not think she is stupid.
That leaves nefarious: as in what was on those emails that she intended to hide from scrutiny?
The big question: will the Times, Today and other usually Hillary-fawning venues pursue this story? Or will they give her the lois lerner treatment and, after a day or two of going through the motions, pretend it doesn’t exist/doesn’t matter?
I’ll be very interested to see, one way or the other. You should be too.
Because if mainstream media bails, even somewhat, on Hillary Clinton, what does she have left? Her accomplishments? Like which ones?
See my point?
