The latest news bulletins:
- The National Archives now want the State Department to explain how Hillary Clinton’s e-mails ended up on a private server, instead of being collected by the United States government. It sounds as though the people from the National Archives are concerned that there might have been shenanigans afoot. Imagine that.
- Even Democrats want an e-mail probe. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, “nearly half of Democratic respondents – 46 percent – agreed there should be an independent review of all of Clinton’s emails to ensure she turned over everything that is work-related.” Additionally, “[t]here was also sizable support among Democrats for the Republican-controlled congressional committee’s effort to require Clinton to testify about the emails.” And most ominously, “[s]upport for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week.”
- Back when she was appointed secretary of state, “Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family’s globe-circling charities.” As part of the promise, the Clinton Foundation was supposed to disclose annually the names of donors. That practice stopped as early as 2010. This is “transparency”? And incidentally, why didn’t the Obama administration object loudly–or even quietly–when the publications stopped?
- The latest Democratic line is to try to promote equivalence between Clinton and Jeb Bush on the e-mail issue. To that end, James Carville recently claimed that “Jeb Bush has released 10 percent of his emails . . . He had a private email server. He destroyed his emails.” In fact, “[i]t is completely inaccurate to say that Bush only revealed 275,000 or 280,000 emails out of a total of 3 million. A more accurate reading would be that he revealed about half of the emails sent to his private account, and the rest were already available to the press, although some might be held back if they were strictly personal in nature.” So much, then, for attempts to smear Bush, whose e-mail practice were utterly non-objectionable, and positively exemplary, when compared to Clinton’s.