Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

Sorry, Hillary Fans: Her Email Dodges are Definitely Newsworthy

The Clinton campaign has one song, and they just keep singing it: whatever sleaze is unearthed about their candidate, she didn’t do it. Then, when undeniable evidence that she did do it surfaces, well, that is just a partisan attack. Any investigation is a witchhunt. Any discussion is simply an attempt to distract from the “real issues.”

For one song sung over and over, you gotta admit, it has legs.

Time for a change. Trevor Timm, of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), says Hillary’s emails do matter, and tells us why in an insightful article from the Guardian.

First, he points out, there’s Clinton herself. She repeatedly denied having classified information in her emails, yet now we find out there are likely “hundreds” of emails containing it. One of her closest aides, Philippe Reines, excoriated Gawker months ago for claiming he was using a private email address to conduct state business during his tenure at the State Department, yet he apparently just turned over 20 boxes of emails containing just that. Does the public not deserve an explanation about these seemingly false statements?

Using private email for public business is also a tried-and-true tactic to evade public records requests, no matter what Clinton defenders might say. And it is beyond question that it worked, as FOIA requests filed for these emails were stonewalled for years and only thanks to the attention are now just starting to trickle out. It may be part of the reason why Clinton’s State Department had a “dismal” record on transparency, which is certainly an issue a lot of non-Republicans care about.

Should citizens not have serious concerns given Clinton was a target of dozens of intelligence agencies as Secretary of State and put herself at increased risk of spying by using private email with unknown security features? In an age where both political parties claim that cybersecurity is such a serious concern that they are willing to trample citizens’ basic privacy rights, it’s a wonder the argument is being made presidential candidates should be above reproach.

The Clinton campaign and its supporters have jumped on the mistakes in the initial New York Times report about Inspectors General allegedly making a “criminal” referral to the Justice Department, only to walk back the story the next day. The Times mistake culminated in the campaign writing an almost 2,000-word screed aimed at the Times that was posted on hillaryclinton.com Thursday night.

Clinton’s camp can quibble over whether it was a “criminal inquiry” or “security inquiry” until they are all blue in the face, but the underlying story remains correct: it’s against the law to mishandle classified information, and there are apparently many, many emails with classified information in them, despite Clinton’s repeated denials.

Food for thought, maybe even the lyrics to a new song, America?