Even though presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has not been recommended for indictment by the FBI, several comments by FBI Director James Comey have the potential to be almost as damaging to her campaign as a criminal indictment itself would have been.
During her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Clinton used at least one private computer server in her New York home through which she communicated all of her emails, private as well as career-related. Among the 30,000 or more email communications were at least 100 that were or could have been “classified,” “confidential” or even “top secret.”
Comey characterized the sending and receiving of such sensitive documents as “extremely careless” on behalf of Clinton and her State Department colleagues.
For more than a year, Clinton has claimed she used only her at-home server because of convenience, and that she never sent or received sensitive State Department communiqués via the server. However, her statements seem to be contradicted by what the FBI learned in its year-long investigation.
It’s no wonder some in the U.S. Congress pounced like cats upon a mouse just days after Comey made his announcement. Many who have always despised both Clintons and who would give the moon and the stars (if not a criminal indictment) to sink her presidential hopes were bitterly disappointed an indictment is not around the bend. Nevertheless, despite their murky motives, they have every right to ask Comey – and Clinton – more questions because, after the investigation, there are too many contradictions that don’t jibe with the results of the official findings. Even those who have long admired Clinton have serious questions about the email controversy. To put it bluntly, has Clinton been flat-out lying all that time? A serious charge, to be sure, but that question will hound her right up to the day of the Nov. 8 election unless she can clear the air and un-muddy the waters.
Was Clinton less than forthcoming? Less than truthful? Was she hiding something, and what did she have to hide? These renewed questions seem to underline, in bold, many people’s impression of her as “untrustworthy.” Clinton is a brilliant woman, familiar for decades with how things are done and not done in the inner sanctums of government. How could she have done something for so long that is so foolhardy, so unnecessary, so just plain stupid? To her credit, she admitted last year that her use of her own computer server was a mistake. But it appears now it cannot be brushed off as a mere mistake. It more resembles a careless disregard for the protocol all State Department officials should adhere to. And, yes, it does call into question her judgment.
Part of the problem of the controversy is how “classified” documents are defined and labeled, but according to the FBI investigation, there were definitely some documents sent which contained sensitive information, whether or not they were labeled as such.
Perhaps Clinton can explain, convincingly, why there are differences between her explanations and the FBI report’s findings. If she can, she had better do it soon, because the longer she delays, the longer will grow the dark shadow now cast upon her presidential aspirations.
