Righting On The Wall: Breaker, Breaker, Pantsuit One . . . #ScoobyVan to Home Base

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Breaker, Breaker, Pantsuit One . . . #ScoobyVan to Home Base

by Kim D.

As Hillary Clinton begins her 2016 presidential campaign, driving around Iowa in the Scooby Van desperately trying to connect with the "everyman," the hits keep coming, hammering upon the email scandal that simply won't go away. Yesterday, Michael Schmidt, of The New York Times, published a hit piece confirming that in 2012 Hillary ignored a congressional letter that inquired if she had, in fact, been using private email while performing her duties as secretary of state.

The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email. “Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”

But why is this significant? Other than the fact that Issa's request was met with crickets, we already know why Clinton had a private server and email account. She claims it was simply a matter of convenience so she wouldn't have to carry multiple electronic devices (aka I'm old, electronically challenged, and can't figure out how to configure more than one email account on my Blackberry). But, in reality, we know her lack of transparency was intentional and meant to shield her email correspondence from congressional and media scrutiny.

Of significance is that when pressed by the Benghazi committee to turn over emails, she printed the ones she wanted the committee to see and deleted all the rest. Then, in order to add another layer of non transparency, she wiped the server, some speculate in the Fall of 2014, two years after Issa's email inquiry letter was met with silence.

Of significance is that some in liberal media like Ron Fournier are siding with Republican watchdogs and questioning the legitimacy of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Clinton blew off a fair & important question from congressional oversight. No accountability transparency or honesty http://t.co/oGBYKA7lQW
— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) April 15, 2015

In a piece penned two days ago, "Of Two Minds on Hillary Clinton: Why I'm Straddling the Fence about my Favorite Clinton," Fornier lamented,

Nearly four of every 10 Americans say they "definitely" won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, according to a Bloomberg Politics poll, roughly the same number (35 percent) who "definitely" or "probably" will support her. That leaves 25 percent who "might or might not vote for her."

Undecided. Up for grabs. On the fence. Whatever cliché you assign to it, I'm part of the one-fourth coalition—millions of Americans who, despite everything we know about Clinton (strike that: because of everything we know about her), are of two minds.

So while Hillary and her crew are driving through America's heartland with the mission of changing the current perception of the presumed Democratic nominee, pressing issues surrounding the email scandal continue. Perhaps the Scooby Van should just return to home base and Hillary should stop trying to convince us that she's one of us. In Hillary's world, the rules that govern the "everyman" simply don't apply to her.