“At this point what difference does it make”
On March 2nd the New York Times posted an article titled “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules.” Dropping the bombshell that during Hillary Clinton’s entire term as Secretary of State she solely used a personal email account, avoiding the use of any government generated account. It was later learned that her team, on the first day of her Senate confirmation hearings, set up a private server in her home, thus giving the Clinton camp total control of what information could be made publicly available including what could be released in the case of Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) request.
In the days following the release of the NY Times story there has been a major media firestorm, across the spectrum, of follow-up stories on Mrs. Clinton’s non-use of a government email account and questioning her reasons for doing so. Virtually all of the Sunday News shows dedicated a segment to the story. The President was asked about it during a CBS interview. On this week’s Saturday Night Live the opening skit was a depiction of Mrs. Clinton’s take on the subject in a piece titled: “I want the public to see my email.“
Here are some sample headlines across what is generally considered the Main Street Media:
From the Washington Post:
As House panel issues subpoenas, questions mount over Clinton e-mails
From the NBC News
Email Controversy Creates Two Lasting Issues for Hillary Clinton
From CBS News
Hillary Clinton’s email server traced to home-based service
From the Associated Press
House Committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe
And from ABC News
Hillary Clinton: House Select Committee on Benghazi Seek All Private Emails
Predictably Fox News and other right leaning sites have been predictably critical. What I find surprising is the harsh treatment that Mrs. Clinton has been receiving on sites that are more left leaning, the best example comes from MSNBC, especially on shows like The Morning Joe and Hardball with Chris Matthews. It has been said that if progressives (and by extension most of the media) didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all, so why all the attention?
I am asking this not because of whether it constitutes a true scandal of major proportions, it does, but because of so much else the Clintons have done in the past that have been under-reported and eventually forgotten about.
In just the last few weeks it has been revealed that the Clinton Foundation received major donations before, during and after her term as Secretary of State from countries, including some disreputable human rights records, that could seek favorable treatment while Mrs. Clinton serving as Secretary of State and later, during a possible presidency.
There was also the recent indictment of senior State Department official Daniel Rosen for solicitation of a minor. Last September TheBlaze.com ran an episode on the Blaze TV’s On the Record titled “Honor Fight: The Battle Inside the State Department” that detailed how the State Department under Hillary Clinton were covering up pedophilia among its ranks. This cover-up was reported to have the involvement of Mrs. Clinton’s top two lieutenants Cheryl Mills and Patrick Kennedy.
As I’ve grown older or as some might say as I’ve become more cynical I’m always looking for an ulterior motive, in this case, as to why Hillary Clinton’s cover-up of her correspondence has gained so much attention. The Clinton’s have been involved in so many shady dealings and cover-ups
that someone could write a book that enough books have been written that an entire section of a library could be filled on the history and dealings of the Clinton family. A side note, I highly recommend Daniel Halper’s Clinton, Inc. as an excellent source of information on the Clinton family.
I know it could be just a product of a slow news cycle but I don’t think so. A couple of theories that I have are that the Democratic hierarchy has decided Hillary Clinton is not far left enough for their taste and they’re attempting to push her aside for someone such as Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley as better choices to further Obama’s agenda. Another theory is that the animosity between the Clinton camp and the Obama camp is not really a secret and maybe the Obama’s are now exerting their revenge since they will no longer need the Clinton’s support in future elections.
I would love to hear other theories and I would encourage anyone to add their comments to let me know what you think.
As always you can read more of my thoughts at markEwatkins.com