The Latest in the Clinton E-mail Controversy

Behold:

  • Hillary Clinton has a long history of frustrating efforts to promote government transparency. Read the whole thing, but here is a highlight: Remember the commodity trading, in which she somehow made $100,000 “from an initial investment of $1,000 in a matter of months for a return of almost 10,000 percent”? Clinton “threatened a campaign lawyer who had access to the [investment] material with retribution if she released the data: ‘You’ll never work in Democratic politics again,’ the lawyer, Loretta Lynch, says Clinton told her.” Charming. And this purveyor of mafia boss tactics wants to be president of the United States?
  • Remember when I wrote about Daniel Metcalfe, the former head of the Office of Information and Privacy at the Department of Justice for thirty years? Sure you do. Metcalfe says that he would vote for Clinton if she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee–he appears to be a loyal Democrat–but he utterly ridicules Clinton’s claims and defense regarding her e-mails.
  • Charles Krauthammer piles on. And he has been given every right and reason to.
  • There is a form that State Department officials are supposed to sign, stating that they have surrendered all official records upon leaving the State Department. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton signed it. No one appears to know the reason for this omission, and no, stating “well, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice didn’t sign the form either” don’t quite suffice as explanations.
  • Maybe the reason Clinton is not campaigning in primary and caucus states is that she doesn’t want to be subjected to still more questions about her e-mail practices, and the glaring inconsistencies in her story. Sometimes, the simplest explanations are the best ones.