She broke no laws. For crying out loud, while she was using a private server, government email systems were being hacked all over the place. Hers? Not at all.
Yes, she deleted her personal emails. Think about it: Would you want everyone rummaging through your personal emails? I wouldn’t.
Have we come to the point that public figures are not allowed to have a private life at all?
And I have to wonder, what would be echoing across the media desert now if she had used two emails? One for personal correspondence and one for professional? I suspect the same people would still be speculating that she was trying to “hide” something by having two emails. Because, you know: Clinton Rules. How much would she have to prove that she didn’t conduct any government business using her private account? I venture it would be the same.
And another question. She was Secretary of State for four years. Certainly the people screaming the loudest now about her private server received emails from her during those four years. Her email extension was no secret. Why no questions then? Oh. Right. She wasn’t doing anything wrong. But now, she wants to be President. And She Must Be Stopped
She has asked that all her professional emails be released – hence the review to make sure that there is nothing sensitive in them. “Sensitive” should not be misconstrued as “classified.” Any classified and/or top secret information and communications came through an entirely different system. In government, be it federal, state or local, lots of documents that were originally NOT deemed classified when distributed among government officials, is often reclassified or redacted when distributed to the public. Ask anyone who has ever made a request through the Freedom of Information Act. The information redacted or classified after the fact is not “top secret.” It is information that might prove embarrassing for an ally or someone else.
And yet, we’ve got the press not letting this go – smearing Hillary by innuendo and rumor. At the same, no similar questions have been asked of Jeb Bush’s email habits while governor of Florida, nor the GW Bush’s use of the RNC email system for their government communications. Why is that?
No, Peter, you’re not the only one.. I, too, remember the 2004 swiftboating of John Kerry and am having horrible deja vu.
Wolf Blitzer’s Outrageous Attack: Why Hillary Needs an Army of Digital Defenders (Peter Daou)
One of those media offenders was CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the same Wolf Blitzer who just spent an entire segment discussing with a Republican guest whether Hillary Clinton had committed a felony or a misdemeanor by using a private email server. This, without a single allegation of criminality or a scintilla of evidence supporting those claims.
Blitzer follows in the footsteps of the New York Times and other major media outlets, whose pathological need to bring down the most popular and powerful woman in American politics has undermined any claim to real journalism in the 2016 race. Another egregious example is Bob Woodward on MSNBC’s Morning Joe comparing Hillary’s emails to Watergate.
The irresponsibility and journalistic turpitude of speculating about criminal charges where none exist boggles the mind. Imagine pondering on the air what charges Jeb Bush would face if he shot someone. On what grounds and by which standards does Blitzer allow an unfettered discussion of a felony by Hillary Clinton? This is not reporting facts, it is hardly reporting at all, it is indoctrinating the public by innuendo. It is smearing Hillary’s image by planting negative thoughts in the minds of voters.
[ . . . ]
When I referenced PTSD at the top of this piece, it was less about the media’s behavior and more about the lack of a robust defense of Kerry. At the time, the Democratic establishment was in the dark about the strategy and ramifications of swiftboating.
[ . . .]
The Kerry campaign, Democratic Party, surrogates and supporters failed to hold the media accountable for their role in propagating the attacks against him.
Analogously, it is astonishing that in 2015, with a vast array of digital tools at our disposal, Hillary doesn’t have 10,000 supporters immediately expressing outrage at Blitzer’s unacceptable segment.
[ . . .]
Hillary cannot directly engage every reporter and every publication when they smear her. Her campaign can’t get caught up in endless spats with the press. It is the job of supporters, donors, outside groups, surrogates, and party leaders to build the army of digital defenders that Hillary needs.
I’ll keep trying. But we need voices louder than mine.