Hot on the heels of my Q&A on Hillary Clinton’s emails, Kimberley Strassel has a closely related post. Here’s a snippet:
All you really need to know at this point is this: Pretty much every claim Mrs. Clinton made at her initial March news conference, and since then, is false. In the spirit of keeping it simple, here’s the Complete Busy Person’s Guide to the Clinton Email Scandal. Stick it on the fridge.
It’s much more negative than mine was.
I honestly don’t see how a fair-minded person could contend that there is absolutely no scandal here.
I think it’s less about being fair-minded, than being open-minded, applying critical thinking to the many incongruencies evolving almost daily to HRC’s original claims.
I think that when all the facts and emails come out Ms Clinton will be seen as doing nothing but protecting her well earned proprietary knowledge base.
Having mastered the cattle futures trading gig, and having paid fairly and studied diligently those system options trading schemes you hear on Saturday afternoon radio, she simply wanted to protect her justly gotten expertise. You don’t just give away that kind of knowledge. Plus the yoga poses and cookie recipes of course. Who knows when the next greedy and poaching Mrs Fields type will hack your State Department account?
This is the same author who wrote one of the most positive articles at the WSJ on Sarah Palin. A fair minded, an open minded reader would suspect that this writer is a political hack and take her conclusions with a large grain of salt.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122549413952789295
What should be under consideration is Clinton’s judgment in doing this. I suspect that her actions will not be found illegal. The laws at the time were sufficiently vague, and others had done similar things, just not to the same degree. The law was actually changed so it is now more clear. Clinton opponents will continue to focus on the illegality in the vain hope they get to see a Clinton in jail. So expect millions more to be spent, just like Whitewater, with no real law found to be broken. Her opponents have a potentially winning argument in questioning her judgment, but they want total victory.
Steve
steve, you’re instantiating the ad hominem fallacy. Please address arguments rather than persons. Ignoring the arguments of people with whom you disagree is just being content to stay within your echo chamber. “She’s a Republican” is not a refutation—it’s attacking her (and Republicans) rather than the points she’s making.