Mrs. Clinton’s statement at the United Nations was vintage Hillary. She was self-righteous, secretive, arrogant, angry, stubborn, legalistic and unconvincing in her replies.
But underscoring her comments is the fact that her entire defense rests one implausible premise: that she can be trusted.
• She won’t allow an examination of her server. We have to trust her that none of the emails concerned classified material.
• She wouldn’t consider allowing an outsider to review the emails and decide if the correct ones had been turned over?
• She would not tell who made the decision on which emails to turn over to the State Department.
• She revealed that she destroyed half of the emails, the ones she, not an impartial reviewer, considered not related to official business.
Normally, this strategy of concealment and delay would be effective as it has proven to be in all past Clinton scandals. Our patience with the questions and the prosecutor will become frayed and we will move on and forget it ever happened.
But this scandal has a time limit, unlike all her others. If it is not resolved until after the summer, we will not simply wait longer. The Democrats will demand that there be an understudy to Hillary. Facing the possibility that the emails, when fully disclosed and the server, when subpoenaed, will prove incriminating is too dangerous a gamble to play during a presidential election. The Democrats will demand certainty and only have confidence in her candidacy if she has met that standard. Otherwise, the pressure to put Elizabeth Warren, at least, on the ballot to be an alternative if needed will mount.
Hillary’s contention is that she did comply with the State Department regulations because the recipients of the emails kept their correspondence on government servers. This contention belies the fact that in so doing, she made it almost impossible to discover what was in the emails. What was a Congressional committee to do? Subpoena every government employee to determine if they received any of Hillary’s emails?
Previously, Hillary’s office had indicated that 90% of the emails were sent to State Department employees in whose systems they are presumably stored. But what about the other 10%. If they were sent to non-State Department employees or even foreigners, there would be no record.
Nor was her answer that she was motivated by convenience to consolidate all her personal emails with those which concern public business at all credible.
But it is very simple to maintain two email accounts in one device. No extra space in her pocketbook needed.
Was this performance designed to make us trust her? Is there anyone in the United States that believes that she, alone among the Cabinet, chose to e mail on a private server because she didn’t want to carry around two devices? She who travels with aides on special planes and rarely carries her own luggage or even her large designer purses?
Who would not harbor suspicions that convenience was not her priority and that secrecy was.
How will this affair play out? The State Department will turn over the selected emails to Congressman Trey Goudy’s committee. He will find that many of those that have been deleted were relevant and should have been produced. A push pull will ensue and, eventually, we will see all the emails and Hillary will take an enormous hit.
And, if Warren isn’t on the ballot, so will the entire Democratic Party.