JK on Clinton emails

[karynnj]

12. Both extremes are nonsense

It is entirely possible to consider that having all her email - private and public - on her personal email server and to have had no regular, timely process for supplying the SD with emails as inadvisable and open to criticism, while at the same time noting that it did not violate the letter of the laws. Ignoring the possible security factors, the question is whether this preserves the historical record.

Had they set up a process where say every 6 months (or preferably more frequently) spooled off the emails for the SD to archive, it would have been more defensible as to not using her control to potentially edit what should be primary source information for history. Given that she could have eliminated messages not sent to state.gov accounts or edited them before transmission, their value as contemporaneous information on her position at a specific point in time could be diminished. (However, a series of email was never intended as a personal journal or diary.)

The hardest thing to defend is that she did not hand over the messages when she left office or set any process up to do so. The NYT says that the SD request to ask for them from HRC was pushed all the way up to Kerry's Chief of Staff, David Wade - who signed off on the request. I remember at a House hearing when Kerry was first SoS, he named David Wade, his very long time aide, as the person to get them what was needed when Representatives complained that there were requests not met. One thing this did do was to put the SD in the awkward position of being accused of stonewalling the Benghazi committee's request for HRC's emails relating to that --- when the truth was the SD did not have them -- and politically, it would be damaging to Obama to say so.

Now, everyone here knows the many Benghazi hearings were simply witch hunts, but the committees do have the right of oversight and they had a right to ask and get the emails. For months, the SD was accused of stonewalling on providing what was asked for - even though at the first hearing he testified to Kerry committed to giving them records that they had the right to see expeditiously. (Note that even as JK was threatened with a subpoena to explain the stonewalling - there was no proactive action by Clinton to give the emails to either the SD or the committee.)

Just as Whitewater likely dragged on far longer than it had to because the Clintons dragged their feet in providing all the records when they had done nothing wrong, I wonder if this has allowed the eternal Benghazi story to drag on.

On DU, there are many who for whatever reason, are not fans of Clinton. However, for many (I include myself) who had become resigned with HRC, because she is likely the best chance to retain the Presidency, something is very familiar in the frustration of seeing the Democratic party and other Democrats (here President Obama) harmed by actions the Clintons took that, even if legal, can't be justified.