For months, most mainstream media have more or less reported that, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she handled emails differently than she probably should have, and this is causing problems for her 2016 presidential campaign.
What you just read is all true. And nicely sanitized to gloss over the seriousness of what happened, the serial dishonesty of Ms. Clinton regarding those emails, and the removal/scrubbing of emails, which is more the kind of behavior you find in an episode of “Law & Order” than the actions of an honest person.
But, as this story continues, and grows….as the lies upon lies continue to grow with it….sanitizing the email scandal is becoming harder and harder to do.
A case in point is today\’s Washington Post article by Carol T. Leonnig, KarenTumulty and Rosalind S. Helderman, which does an very good job in partially defining the breadth of this scandal…by doing nothing other than honestly presenting both sides of the story instead of the usual glossover job.
Two key paragraphs:
The controversy over her private e-mail setup has moved into a new and, potentially, more serious phase. What had begun five months ago as a relatively narrow question about proper archiving of public records has become a bigger, more politically dangerous one: Whether the then-secretary of state and her close aides, in choosing to use a private e-mail system, disregarded common sense and may have put sensitive information at risk of falling into the wrong hands.
The issues around Clinton\’s e-mails have also intensified as it has become clear that a number of her statements defending her actions now appear to be false.
Disregard of common sense, put sensitive information at risk of falling into the wrong hands, ongoingly lying about it. Yes, yes and yes; all true.
The reason I call this a partial definition of the email scandal, however, is that Leonnig, Tumulty and Helderman managed to leave out the obvious possibility that those emails were scrubbed because they may have shown how poorly she performed as Secretary of State – most especially on Benghazi – and whether she was providing special treatment to organizations which gave money to The Clinton Foundation.
If they had at least mentioned this very real possibility I would be calling their article excellent instead of very good.
But, at least it is a step in the right direction; one which, I hope, other mainstream media will finally start providing as well.
