Clinton
[Black Star News Editorial]
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton remember how the Republican opposition attacked them with non-stop accusations, including even of “murdering” Vince Foster, during Bill’s term in office.
The attacks were so vicious that Hillary famously declared that there was a “vast Right Wing conspiracy” to get her and her husband.
Hillary and Bill are one of the smartest power political couples and legal minds –perhaps only after the Obamas– in the United States. They must have known that word would eventually get out about her use of a private e-mail address, a personal domain and her own in-house server to conduct personal correspondences as well as State Department business.
So why would Hillary Clinton introduce a new element in the form of E-mailgate into the political equation? She knew that one day word would get out and she knew how the Republican opposition would spin it regardless of her motives.
Her explanation today at a news conference that use of the personal e-mail account was simply “convenient” isn’t convincing. It’s troublesome if that’s her best explanation.
So is there something there? What was Hillary thinking for such a major sustained “lapse” in judgment to occur if that’s what it was?
Was there something that made it worthwhile for Hillary, or perhaps someone else, for her to take that risk by introducing more fodder for Republicans or her other detractors?
Who, or which entity could’ve possibly benefited from Hillary Clinton’s position as Secretary of State or after she left the post? What about what was previously the Bill Clinton Foundation, now renamed The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation?
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009, the foundation agreed to the Obama Administration’s request that it not continue to solicit money from foreign donors for fear of appearance of conflict of interest while she headed the State Department.
The ban was lifted in 2013 after Hillary Clinton left State.
The Wall Street Journal has recently published a number of articles about millions in donations from foreign countries, including those made since 2014.
Hillary Clinton sent several e-mail messages to foreign officials using her personal e-mail account. Were all the e-mail messages sent by Clinton to foreign officials strictly dealing with official United States business?
Is it possible that some foreign officials who previously received e-mail messages from Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail account on business, also received e-mail messages from Clinton that dealt with issues that were non-U.S. official business related?
For example, was Hillary Clinton more easily able to foster personal relations with some foreign officials because she used the same personal e-mail account for both business and personal communications thereby blurring the lines?
Presumably, such relations developed even while she was Secretary of State could then be of personal benefit to her, to the Clintons’ foundation, or to other Clinton associates after her tenure at state.
This could be a significant issue since she would not have to start building a “personal” relationship from scratch after leaving the State Department; she could then just build on the personal relationship already established while she was actually Secretary of State.
In other words the personal account could have allowed communications that implied a deferred quid-pro-quo to occur.
Clinton is entitled to delete e-mail messages that deal with personal family matters such as Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
But if there are in fact e-mail messages showing that Clinton developed relationships that could then be used for future personal gains, either to the foundation or other Clinton associates, while such messages could technically qualify as “personal” they would present serious problems.
Presumably the recipients of any such problematic e-mail messages would also have copies.
