After years of manufacturing false scandals around Hillary
Clinton, right-wing attack dogs and the mainstream media finally have a bone to
gnaw that has some meat on it: Hillary’s handling of emails while she was
secretary of state.
Let’s first review all the false scandals: The Whitewater
investigation turned up nothing but evidence of an affair between consensual
adults, neither of whom was Hillary. Her husband’s affairs are a private matter
that have no bearing on her capabilities unless you believe that repairing the
damage caused by a spouse’s affair or being married to a philanderer by definition
disqualifies a person (note I did not say woman) from holding the presidency.
None of the ten separate investigations into the Benghazi incident have found a
single reason to blame Hillary Clinton for either her actions or her policies. The
accusations that the world respects the United States less because of her
actions as Secretary of State are part of the larger fiction that the Obama
administration’s actions in the Middle East caused the rise of ISIS; related
nonsense is that we gave away the store by entering into a nuclear deal with
Iran and that Obama doesn’t support Israel.
All these lies and false accusations for all these years. Finally
there arises an accusation against Hillary that has some merit: she did
mishandle her emails as Secretary of State.
The important question is how serious were her actions? Do
they disqualify her from serving as president? Do they rise to the level of
criminality?
After a bit of Internet research, including reading the recent report of the State Department’s Inspector
General, I’ve identified three key questions to help determine if
Hillary’s actions regarding her email when secretary of state disqualify her
from higher office.
1. How different was
her handling of email from other government officials?
None whatsoever. Many government officials, including every
secretary of state before John Kerry, used private email addresses. A much
smaller number also used a private server. No one else has received negative
attention for her-his handling of email.
2 Did or did not
Clinton’s aides cooperate with the various investigations?
The State Department’s Inspector General’s
office says “no,” Clinton spokespersons say “yes.” We have to go with the State
Department on this one. I leave it to the dear reader to determine whether
dragging your feet responding to an investigation that reveals no criminality or
fault disqualifies you from the presidency.
3. How much did the
Clinton handling of email decrease national security?
Only a fool would deny that using a private server probably
represented a security risk, but let’s keep in mind that hackers are always
trying to attack U.S. government databases and that every year we face more
sophisticated attacks. But we also have more sophisticated tools and protocols
to fight computer crimes against the government. Keep in mind, too, that a
tremendous number of government documents are classified that should not be,
much, much too many for the free and open society we are supposed to have.
There have been no reports that Clinton’s handling of email led to any leak of
information that harmed the country or an ally. To be sure, Clinton was lucky,
but given the many holes in our collective firewall and the constantly
escalating war between the government and hackers, we are lucky every day of
the week.
Yes, Hillary made a mistake, which she has freely admitted.
But others made the same mistake. Time
and standards changed, and what seemed acceptable at the time in retrospect seems
to be a bad decision.
But the criticism of Hillary regarding her email seems to
follow a broader pattern: We blame her and not others who committed the same
sins. Detractors have blamed her for voting to enable George W. Bush to send
troops to Iraq, forgetting that most Senators voted with her and that the Bush
Administration had given her and her Senate peers—and the rest of the
country—misleading information about weapons of mass destruction and
connections to those responsible for 9/11.
Detractors also blame Hillary for the Draconian prison sentence mandates and the cuts in welfare programs under her husband’s administration, despite the fact that she did not hold a government position at the time and in fact her political influence was at a low point, because of the failure of her attempt to develop a single-payer healthcare system. Bernie Sanders has received no criticism for his 1990’s votes on stiffer sentences and welfare reform.
The broader pattern is to blame Hillary and not others for
past actions that many people took regarding issues about which the entire
country has changed its mind. In a real sense, the news media has created a
double standard for Hillary Clinton.
If you don’t think a double standard is in operation when it
comes to Hillary, consider that one of the ten investigations of Benghazi is
ongoing and that we have yet to hear the Federal Bureau of Investigations chime
in about the Clinton emails. We continue to waste taxpayer money on witch hunts
that come up with nothing or with the realization that Hillary only did what
others were doing. And yet the same
Obama Administration that is pursuing the Clinton emails decided not to prosecute any government official for their part in
creating an illegal and embarrassing American torture gulag throughout the
world. Not Bush II, not Dick Cheney, not John Yoo, not David Addington—no one
was prosecuted or investigated. We just swept it under the table and promised
not to do it again, a promise that Donald Trump is ready to break if he is
elected. Nor are there any active investigations about the obvious lies that
Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and others told to convince us to go to war against
Iraq.
The news media aided and abetted the government in sweeping
the terrible deeds and rampant illegality of the Bush Administration under a
rug. It would be a shame if applying a double standard on activities that were
not illegal should serve as the reason not to elect one of the most qualified
individuals ever to run for president.