Two major editorial boards have criticized Hillary Clinton’s handling of email during her time as Secretary of State in the wake of a critical Inspector General report.
On Thursday, the New York Times editorial board highlighted the effect on her presidential campaign. And without using labels, they pointed out that the facts don’t match her claims:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server…
When Republicans first questioned the propriety of using her own home-based server over a year ago, Mrs. Clinton sought to finesse the matter as partisan flak. Under pressure, she eventually apologized for a “mistake,” while insisting she had done nothing wrong and would cooperate fully with investigators. But she did not honor that promise, according to the report, which noted that she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve Linick, or his staff.
Their advice?
Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.
Because “the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy.”
Monday evening, USA Today weighed in, with harsher language: “Hillary Clinton broke the rules: Our view.”
But a new report by State’s inspector general makes clear that within two years, Clinton’s bad decision had turned into something far worse: a threat to national security, one that she repeatedly ignored despite multiple warnings…
Those warnings, coming in a span of six months, should have made any responsible public official, even one without Clinton’s access to classified information on cyber threats from the vast U.S. intelligence network, aware of the national security dangers of failing to secure the secretary of State’s email communications…
If Clinton wants to become the president of the United States, she needs to explain how she could make such a reckless decision. She had a chance to answer questions when the Obama administration-appointed inspector general contacted her about the investigation that was released last week. Among five recent secretaries of State, only Clinton refused.
Because “she is going to have to convince voters that she can put the national security of the United States above her own short-term self-interest.”
The New York Times published one of the most comprehensive overviews the controvery — which is far more complicated than using “personal email” like gmail or Hotmail — last August.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com