It was Hillary Clinton sounding like she was being magnanimous. Late Wednesday night she announced her request to the State Department to disclose all of the emails she sent them from her term as Secretary of State.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.Isn't she wonderful. Isn't this a much different Hillary Clinton, allowing the public to see all the emails that she, along with her advisers decided to give the State Department?
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 5, 2015
Actually it wasn't her decision. Clinton provided the 55,000 emails after the State Department asked them, and we are not sure of which emails she didn't give. But the Democrats are rushing to praise their only choice for 2016. For example ABC commentator Donna Brazile.
.@HillaryClinton wants you to read and see her emails without the partisan filters. Can the media handle this one without the usual bias?Of course being the party first type, Brazile ignores the fact that the partisan filter happened before the emails were released to the State Department.
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) March 5, 2015
And there is really nothing magnanimous about Hillary releasing her emails. Those realeased other may never see the light of day are not her property they are the property of the American people. The Federal Records Act states clearly that all department heads (including the Secretary of State). “shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”
As a former First Lady and a Secretary of State the federal records act should not be a surprise, especially after her friend and former National Security Adviser for her husband Sandy Berger was caught stuffing confidential documents down his pants trying to steal them from National Archives (Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal of federal documents).
There is a bigger issue in this latest of Clinton scandals. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt (and that's a HUGE benefit). Let's assume for a moment that she didn't set up the personal email server in her house explicitly for being able to control what get's release, lets also assume that the 55K emails she turned over were all of them, that she held nothing back and nothing was erased. Of course you would have to believe that unicorns exist also--but bear with me.
The bigger issue is national security. Here was the Secretary of State using a private server without the same protections as a government server to send her sometimes sensitive communications. Any good hacker could have gotten into her emails. Heck if they knew about Hilliary's lack of protection, North Korea might have ignored Sony and gone into her emails.
This means Clinton have very little regard for national security or at least she had a much higher regard for being able to control her political message than she had for national security.
Should someone with such a lack of regard for national security even be considered for the office of President?