What’s the difference between 18 and-a-half minutes of missing audio tape and missing e-mails from a server?
The media is quick to add the suffix “gate” to any political scandal but as of yet I have not seen nor read the term e-mailgate anywhere to refer to Hillary Clinton’s illegal activity when she was Secretary of State.
As an aside, I love the irony that Mrs. Clinton began her legal career advising the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation and is now faced with a similar issue. Didn’t she learn anything from President Nixon? The cover up – not the crime – is what brings the politician down.
In April General David Petraeus was sentenced to serve two years on probation and to pay a fine of $100,000 for mishandling top secret information. It seems Mrs. Clinton is guilty of the same thing but I do not hear the same drum beat to punish her that General Petraeus heard.
To be fair, General Petraeus shared classified information with his biographer while Mrs. Clinton basically allowed classified information to go unprotected. It’s not really the same thing but where is the outrage from the media?
The Federal Records Act requires federal employees to preserve records that contain “informational value” or that document “the transaction of public business” and “the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the government.” In typical Clinton fashion, she is playing games and suggesting since the law was not amended to prohibit government officials from using private emails until last year, she did not violate the law.
That’s like saying someone did not commit a crime once the statute of limitations runs out. Technically it’s true. Realistically the person committed the crime. Mrs. Clinton also claims she did not send any documents marked classified. When it comes to Clinton speak we must pay close attention to the words used.
It may be true the document may not have been marked classified when she sent them but that doesn’t mean the information was not classified. According to recent news reports more than 300 e-mails that traversed her private server meet the standard of being designated as classified.
Mrs. Clinton faces a dilemma with her claim she did not send any documents marked classified. We can question her ability to determine what is considered sensitive information. Do we want a president that cannot make that distinction? We can question whether she knew the information was sensitive but was too arrogant to care. Do we want such a person as our president? We can even question her competence as a leader.
We see what happens when we elect an incompetent person as president for the past six years. Do we want a sequel?
This episode raises a lot of questions about Mrs. Clinton. Her supporters and mainstream media will make the case we shouldn’t question her and brand us sexist.
Forget all that noise. I think we should question is her motives! Why would anyone conduct public business on a private server? We’ll never get an answer but deep down most of us know she believes herself to be above the law. Do we really want that attitude as our president?