“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”
This is significant and reduces the alleged “scandal” to an even smaller molehill. While The New York Times led the charge to criminalize this story, bashing Clinton on the front page for six months, your publication took 35 hours to report this exonerating development — and then only on page A14. All in all, quite the collection.*
Hillary Clinton is running an intelligent campaign and has a strong service record. In your paper’s hands, this, too, is diminished. Instead, her deeds are painted as coming from a “calculating” she-devil operating only for her own gain. With this “meme,” the paper of record cements the notion that ambition is laudable in a man but despicable in a woman. The Times’ reporters and columnists have also pretended to Clinton’s sense of “entitlement.” Yet entitlement is allergic to hard work. No one with the work ethic Secretary Clinton has, fighting for the causes she has, starting with the Children’s Defense Fund over 40 years ago, can realistically be accused of being self-serving. This is the prescribed frame for many of the stories you publish. The New York Times’ stance is unfathomable. Could it be that beltway reporters have ingested each others’ predetermined biases long enough that they actually believe them? If so, we have come to a sad pass.
Where is the feverish reportage on Jeb Bush’s skirting of campaign finance laws, for example? Instead we get stories about his yoga mats and Tesla brochures. Hillary Clinton’s fame and accomplishment do not grant the right to subject her to a standard to which you do not hold anyone else. Throwing time honored traditions of journalism out the window leaves the reader little choice but to assume this is a conscious choice on the part of your publication. I pray that is not your intention and that The New York Times will take swift action to clean house and amend this improper treatment.
As you have noted, she deserves a fair shake.
Thus far, she has not gotten it.
H/T to All Been Arranged for drawing attention to this latest story.