Dear editor,
I usually enjoy reading the Register’s excellent editorials but I have to take issue with the one printed on September 10 regarding Hillary Clinton. The statements don’t coincide with facts from reliable sources. For example, Politico.com (which leans right) and numerous reports show that it was only after Clinton left the state department that the national archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting business on personal emails. Yes, President Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to the official’s account. But, these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office. “She was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,” said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
In case anyone relies on The New York Times for information, please note that the Time’s DC bureau chief had to step down after the paper published egregiously false stories about these emails. One of them wrongly claimed that they violated federal laws. Subsequently, the paper walked that back, explaining that at the time Clinton was at State, there was never any legal prohibition about private email use. On July 23, the Times falsely claimed that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation. However, the probe was actually not criminal. After the Times issued two separate corrections, the paper was strongly reproached by its public editor, Margaret Sullivan. Are you surprised you didn’t hear about these?
At the height of the U.S. attorney scandal and after Dick Cheney outed a CIA specialist because her husband had the nerve to dispute the administration’s excuses for going to war with Iraq, Karl Rove deleted 22 million emails that had been routed through the RNC’s private server. This was barely mentioned in the media and Republicans in Congress said nothing. Colin Powell said that he used a system similar to Clinton’s when he was secretary of state. Why is it that everything Hillary does, even if legal and with the full knowledge of the state department, is scandalous while prior damaging actions taken by Republicans aren’t worthy of note?
In my opinion, she should not have apologized since she had no reason to believe that following precedent was inappropriate. Obviously, the Beltway insiders are afraid of her. The Benghazi investigations have come to naught, but since when have facts made any difference? If they have to make things up they will.
Former Iolan,
Catherine Myers Bowser
Overland Park, Kan.
Letter to the editor — September 14, 2015
