Hillary and Common Sense
If there is anything left of the strategy of the Hillary Clinton grab for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, it must be a plot to create a numbing boredom for the voters producing a kind of stupor which would accept her coronation whatever its conditions.
The continuing series of charges and lies and admission and new denials and new admissions of some pretty obvious facts is beginning to wear on our nerves. We can’t but imagine that that is true for most of the voters, even the most politically motivated and engaged partisans who try to follow every complicated turn of events.
There is an additional problem, of course: None of this falderal is helped by the media, as increasingly inept in this subject as it has been all through hitching its wagon to the Obama star some six years ago. For most of the talking heads, whether knowingly or unwillingly, fall into every trap of the general confusion set in motion by the Hillary team and we get a so-called discussion of detail that constantly misses the whole point of the argument. .
Let’s get a few things straight:
First of all, it is perfectly clear that Hillary set up the separate nonofficial server [or was there more than one?] to hide whatever it was that she thought the usual official registration required of all government servants. It had nothing to do with her original claim that it was to lessen the claim on her operating several handheld devices, since we now know she several devices and have the photographs to prove it.
She did that, we must assume, because she wanted to hide something.
Nor is it acceptable that she would not know that official messages must move on official lines of communication. That is why there are official networks, or at least, one of the reasons. The other, and that brings up still another point, is that those networks have elaborate if sometimes faulty, we learn, methods of hiding their contents from the view of out potential enemies. That may or may not be the case with her own specially designed network, whatever the expert hired help she may have rented which now takes the Fifth.
The question, then, still unanswered, is: What did she want to hide? That is, what did she fear even within the strictures of confidentiality of government documents, did she believe her official correspondence would reveal that would be damaging to her own reputation. She surely could not have believed she was increasing security by ignoring the government networks. For she had to assume, that government networks already had provided for guarding national security secrets that she might be privy to because of her correspondence.
In all the digging in the minutiae, growing by the hour, the media have not really put that question front and center.
Secondly, it is also perfectly clear that any message transmitted to the Secretary of State, whatever its official classification, takes on an importance of its own simply for that reason. Furthermore, we have to assume that few if any messages are sent to the Secretary of State which someone in the bureaucracy or in her own entourage do not think are important.
The fact is, of course, that the Secretary of State is not only one of the most important officials of the federal government, with duties that have enormous implications in domestic as well as in foreign affairs. But since the Secretary of State is now the fourth in line for succession to the presidency in a major emergency, a crisis which can never be altogether discounted, that makes her correspondence and her knowledge gained from it all the mort important. Any piece of information which flows to the Secretary, presumably to be scanned if not studied becomes important for that very reason.
Okay, now we risk going off the deep end ourselves and adding more blather to the general cacophony.
But enough already! Hillary Clinton knowingly took her communications in office as Secretary of State out of the purview of official examination. Is that, or is that not, enough to discredit her campaign to make herself the chief executive of The Republic. And that we have to leave to the voters to decide.