By Shannen W. Coffin
Monday, September 28, 2015
With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe
that she is lying, Hillary Clinton has been more aggressive in addressing
questions about her private e-mail server. But with each new appearance, more
questions are raised than answered. Her latest interview with Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd is no
exception.
For months, Mrs. Clinton has insisted that she, and she
alone, had the power to determine whether her e-mails were required to be
preserved as federal records. In her initial press conference at the United
Nations in March, she explained that “for any government employee, it is that
government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s
work-related.” Her campaign website reinforces that contention, arguing that
the “Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official to
determine what is and is not a federal record.” And the Department of Justice
recently told a federal judge the same thing: “Under policies issued both by
the National Archives and Records Administration and the State Department,
individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise
judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”
Despite months of consistent reliance on this defense,
Hillary now admits that she never exercised any judgment to determine what
constitutes a federal record. Instead, somewhat astonishingly, Hillary didn’t
review a single e-mail to determine
what she had to preserve and what she could delete. When asked by Todd whether
she could say with 100 percent certainty that she didn’t delete anything that
she was supposed to preserve, Mrs. Clinton responded: “All I can tell you is
that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I [did] not
participate. . . . I didn’t look at them.”
Clinton’s contention about the role of federal employees
in record preservation always had a grain of truth to it. Given the sheer
volume of documents created by the federal government, the Federal Records Act
depends on individual officers and employees to make the initial determination
of whether a particular e-mail or document created or received by them
qualifies as a public record. Hillary Clinton never made that determination
while she was secretary of state, instead removing all of her e-mails en masse
upon her resignation. Now we know that she didn’t make that determination even
after she left the State Department.
Whatever the responsibility of a federal employee to
determine which records are official, then, Hillary Clinton did not exercise
that responsibility. She asked her lawyers to do so. That explains why Mrs.
Clinton could not swear to a federal court that all of her official records had
been returned to the State Department, instead merely asserting “on information
and belief” that her lawyers had complied with her instructions. Even giving
her the benefit of all doubts, Hillary Clinton can’t tell the American people
whether she returned all of her official e-mails to the State Department,
because she simply doesn’t know.
Or does she? Missing from Clinton’s 30,000 returned
e-mails were at least 15 e-mails with Sidney Blumenthal that Blumenthal
provided to congressional investigators. Clinton has never explained this
discrepancy. Add to that a recent Associated Press report that another tranche
of previously unidentified e-mails — this one a series of exchanges with David
Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command, between January and February 2009
— were recently turned over by the Defense Department to the State Department
inspector general.
Rather than explain the latest gap, Mrs. Clinton
remarkably cites it as evidence of her compliance with the law. Brushing aside
her e-mails with Blumenthal, Tony Blair, and other contacts outside the U.S.
government, Clinton speciously told Todd: “All of the e-mails that I sent were
intended to be in the government systems if they were work-related. That’s why
I sent them to people at their work addresses.” The whole reason we know about
the e-mail chain with General Petraeus, she claimed, “is because it was on a government
server.”
The real reason we know about the e-mail chain with
General Petraeus is that someone at the Defense Department blew the whistle on
Clinton’s public claims of full transparency. It is not because Clinton
complied with federal law; her compliance has been woefully inadequate. By
relying on officials outside the State Department to preserve her e-mails,
Clinton failed in her basic duty under the Federal Records Act to “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.”
The law did not place upon General Petraeus a duty to
preserve the records of the State Department. It placed that duty squarely on
Hillary Clinton. Her claims of 90 percent success — “that 90 percent of my
work-related e-mails” were on State Department servers — hardly allay any
doubts. Were such a “success” rate evidence of complete transparency, the State
Department would not still be producing documents to the House Select Committee
on Benghazi. Yet as recently as last Friday, it produced more than 900
additional Clinton e-mails. “Close enough for government work” isn’t a defense
that inspires confidence in a presidential candidate.
More questions are likely to come from Mrs. Clinton’s
latest explanations. She told Todd, for instance, that she “do[es] not
communicate with the [Clinton] foundation.” Reports that Sidney Blumenthal was
being paid $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation while surreptitiously
advising Hillary Clinton would seem to directly contradict her claim. And it is
hard to believe, more generally, that Mrs. Clinton had no communications with a
foundation run by her husband and daughter while she was serving in government.
Should the FBI be able to recover her deleted emails, as recent leaks suggest,
Mrs. Clinton will have even more questions to answer.
The “drip-drip” of which Mrs. Clinton complains is fast
becoming an open spigot. She’s done very little of late to stop the flow.
No comments:
Post a Comment