So today’s the big day.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be before Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi, a forum through which she’ll be allowed once again to grandstand in support of her bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Pundits and talking heads are spinning themselves to distraction, while what perplexes me about the entire situation remains: I can’t understand why her popularity has ebbed and flowed as new ‘revelations’ as to the contents of her personal email server have come to light.
As a member of the military, and the possessor of a high-level security clearance, I am of course aghast at the cavalier attitude she and her underlings at State demonstrated with regard to classified information and its handling. Sure, yes, she and those charged with advising her on such matters should be held responsible and (not that I was on the verge of endorsing her anyway) this carelessness and risk should certainly demonstrate her lack of qualification for president. Bla bla, yadda yadda.
BUT…
All that aside, the most damning part of her ‘secret’ ‘home-brewed’ server is that it exists in the first place!
How is it possible that the contempt shown for the American public’s right to know, even if only for the sake of posterity, the goings-on at State not returned in kind by a Nation founded on the principles of representative government answerable to The People?
I get it; it’s an election year. There’s plenty of gamesmanship, posturing and feigned outrage.
But seriously: No less a mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton than longtime confidant and hit-man James Carville himself has acknowledged brazenly and blatantly that her purpose for having a private server in the first place was, “I suspect she didn’t want Louis Gohmert rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.” In Mr. Carville’s opinion, does that reasonableness stem from the fact that Gohmert sits on the House Judiciary Committee, which is responsible, among other things, for handling impeachment proceedings against federal officials? More generally speaking, it surely would seem “reasonable” if your intention was to, as a public official, avoid any sort of accountability to the people of America or their representatives in Congress (whose job is oversight of you and your organization) by way of completely controlling and keeping from exposure the entire catalog of your communications in your official role. Those communications belong to us, not her.
How is the party ostensibly ‘of the little-guy’ about to coronate a politician so contemptuous of Americans to be their nominee for president? How on earth does it even tolerate her in its ranks at all?
Forget (if you can) the national security risks and exposure her choice represents. Forget the “drip, drip, drip” of supposedly damaging information being squeezed out of a recalcitrant Kerry State Department. Forget inevitable-for-anbody-else-besides-the-well-connected indictments and FBI criminal investigations. Forget all that.
If we aren’t a Nation wherein someone who shows this brash level of (sorry to keep using this word, but it’s really the only one I can think of) contempt for Americans’ right to self-governance (which requires openness of government, which in turn requires Freedom Of Information, if that rings a bell) isn’t drummed out of our national dialog, but rather is actually the nominee for president of one of our major political parties, then perhaps we’re around the bend already.
In fairness, some on the Left really do seem to have conviction about responsible and representative government. Here is an excellent Q&A that boils down the importance of this issue far beyond the bombast of presidential politics and cuts to the core of the issue at hand. Jason Leopold:
The most important aspect of her emails that anyone should be paying attention to is the fact that we don’t have answers as to why she was using a private email account, and avoiding the Federal Records Act—which is a law—and why the State Department failed to respond to legitimate requests from journalists under the Freedom of Information Act for her emails years before this scandal was ever revealed.
If the fact that the person who holds the office of the #1 individual within the administration after the VP to succeed the president having a ‘home-brewed’ server for (obviously) the purpose of avoiding accountability isn’t news enough in and of itself, what sort of representative nation are we?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
Exactly. Imagine Carville calling it “reasonable” that a government official (and indeed, a Constitutional officer) tried to hide her official communications, if it were (say) Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin. Or any conservative.
But Clintons break the nation’s laws all the time, and their lickspittles excuse them.
Frankly, she should be in jail for dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice. We KNOW why she had a private server. She wanted to cover her tracks. Period.
I find my loathing of “Kankles” Clinton is identical to my loathing for Jennifer Rubin.
ILoveCaptalism, I like your use of “lickspittles”–a word I have often used for the Clintonistas and others of the deaf and blind leftist persuasion. Glad to see that others remember the word and use it.
ColoradoPatriot, nice piece.
(I kind of miss Colorado Springs.)
The whole e-mail issue boils down to one thing: Hillary Clinton doesn’t understand how e-mail works. (Not really that surprising for someone who hasn’t driven a vehicle since the last century. Or who most likely hasn’t paid her own household expenses in this century.)
If she did, she’d understand the importance of using secure communications for any routine business, given her position and her employer. She would also understand how easily e-mail can be compromised and that there are individuals—and governments—who are actively seeking to do so. She would also appreciate the laws concerning public records and how the rules are the same even if the message isn’t printed on dead tree pulp. It’s not like having your own illicit slot machine in your basement so you can gamble whenever you want, or invite your friends to do so.
That her excuse is to simply wave her hand and suggest that she did it purely for convenience and that it’s no-big-deal and the hullabaloo all about “politics” shows how out of touch she is with basic society in a world where everyone else who uses e-mail in a professional setting knows what the rules are and realizes the serious jeopardy they put themselves and their organization in by violating those rules (including having to sign statements to that effect before they can use said e-mail).
Does America really want someone as President who is that out-of-touch with everyday life? (This aside from any other negatives.)
If the Benghazi Hearings yesterday proved one thing; that Hillary Clinton is a consummate LIAR. You would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind (which descibes most leftists) to think otherwise. Elijah Cummings, defending her, made it worse because of his own lack of creditability. She may have cleared the path to the Democratic nomination, but not to the White House if independents vote along with Republicans for our nominee.
“If the Benghazi Hearings yesterday proved one thing; that Hillary Clinton is a consummate LIAR.”
You might be right, Roberto. But the hearings also prove one other thing–that her enemies threw everything they could at her over a period of 9 hours in an highest stakes contest, and she took it, and showed those watching that she could take it and keep her cool (and her story straight) under extreme pressure. You might not like the outcome, but it was a big gift to HC from the Republican Party that will help dispel the “Hilary is weak” meme. Is there any Republican candidate at the moment who might be able to get as good a results HC under a similar period of extended extreme emotional pressure? Perhaps Rubio? or Cruz? Does everyone else just dissolve into puddles of radioactive goo or volcanic eruptions?
You have to hope that the FBI investigation of the email servers turns up a smoking gun; if not…
It’s so entertaining watching how easily liberals like Cas are taken in by behavior that clearly resembles a psychopath.
But then again, we must keep in mind that Cas by its own admittance is incapable of living without government money and believes that government exists to take from others so that Cas does not have to be competent, intelligent, or hardworking.
Hillary promises free candy, and thus Cas will obey her every word. It’s really not that difficult. Adults, on the other hand, realize that Hillary’s behavior is pathological and ask, wisely, why she should be trusted with power when clearly she refuses to abide by the laws of the United States or to take responsibility for any of her actions.