Commentary Magazine


Why Hillary’s Emails Still Matter

Almost from the moment we first heard the astonishing news that Hillary Clinton conducted business while serving as secretary of state on a secret email account operating from a home server and then deleted most of its contents, Democrats have been telling the American public that there was nothing to see so they should just move on. In their favor was the fact that, as bizarre as this scenario was, it was a scandal not directly linked to an actual crime. Republicans had discovered her odd behavior while investigating the Benghazi terror attacks and this encouraged Democrats to think that, no matter how inexplicable her behavior might have been, the public’s patience with what seemed like an endless dead end story had long since ended. But last week, the Hillary Clinton email mess got new life when it turned out that, contrary to her assertions, the former secretary of state had not, as she said, turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department before deleting all other data on the server that Clinton claimed were personal. A subpoena served on Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal turned up 15 emails that didn’t match any of the 30,000 that she turned over to the State Department. This raises two factors that ought to worry Democrats counting on her being the next president. One is that we now know for sure that she lied about the deleted emails not being about official business. The other is that the Blumenthal connection highlights the unholy nexus of official and private business interests that link the Clinton Family Foundation to the Hillary Clinton State Department.

The timing of this discovery couldn’t be worse for Hillary since, as our Noah Rothman wrote last week, it comes on the heels of polls showing sizeable numbers of Democrats in crucial early voting states like New Hampshire may be tempted to vote for her socialist challenger Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator offers an authentic left-wing voice to a party that is increasingly shifting to the left. While most Democrats will stick with Hillary, this latest reminder of her mendacity further damages her credibility.

Moreover, it is also a reminder of the unpleasant odor that emanates from the Clinton Foundation. The willingness of the Clintons to raise vast sums of money from individuals and countries that hoped to influence U.S. foreign policy while she served as secretary of state was a shocking conflict of interest. That was especially true of some of the egregious examples uncovered by author Peter Schweizer in his Clinton Cash book, such as the owners of a uranium mine that needed and got State Department approval for its sale to Russia after becoming donors to the foundation.

Blumenthal was a paid consultant to the Foundation while he was also advising Clinton on Libya policy, the subject of the emails that just turned up. Blumenthal had never even visited the country, but the longtime Clinton political hit man had business interests there and was seeking to influence the secretary’s decisions about U.S. strategies in the strife-torn North African country. The emails also appear to reveal that contrary to another of Hillary’s assertions, his advice was not unsolicited and that she encouraged him to keep the information coming.

What does this mean?

In Clinton’s favor, the emails still provide no direct link to a felony either involving her emails or the foundation. But the Blumenthal emails show that is clear that there were at least some, if not quite a lot of emails relating to official business that were deleted when she had her home server wiped. We’ll never know what those said. But what we do know is that she has lied about them. Moreover, we also know that this shows that foundation connections were inextricably tied up with official state department policy discussions. Democrats, like ranking Benghazi panel member Rep. Elijah Cummings, may complain that the committee is focused solely on investigating Hillary Clinton but blaming this all on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” won’t end questions that have caused most Americans to tell pollsters they don’t trust the former First Lady.

The email story has legs because we now know Hillary not only didn’t follow President Obama’s advice about transparency but also lied about she was doing with her records. None of this would be a subject for discussion if she had used a government email or hadn’t wiped her server clean. Nor would there be grounds for suspicion if the Clintons weren’t operating a political slush fund under the guise of a charity that raised billions but gave little of it to directly help the poor.

As it has been repeatedly said in the last few months, if not being indicted is the sole criteria for electing a person to the presidency, it’s likely Hillary Clinton will qualify. But if even the New York Times is prepared to admit that the Blumenthal emails contradict Clint’s assertions, Democrats know their presumptive nominee has a serious problem. the continuing questions will help Sanders undermine her juggernaut and cause her to have to fight harder for her party’s nomination and drift farther to the left to do so. That doesn’t mean she can’t ultimately win the presidency. But the higher the pile of Clinton lies grows, the easier it is to imagine that she will not be taking the oath of office in January 2017.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

3 Responses to “Why Hillary’s Emails Still Matter”


    You cannot underestimate the idiocy of the American electorate. They elected Obama not once but twice. Her greatest qualification is that she is a woman and that may be enough to get her elected even though there is no honesty in anything she says or does.


    As Trey Gowdy plays Bilbo to Hillary’s Smaug, the riches of the Clinton Foundation can undo so much of reality as to remake history. What does it take to catch this dragon?

  3. EDWARD VEAL says:

    A further point is that the e-mails that Secretary Clinton withheld weren’t a random assortment, such as might have been overlooked by accident. They were clearly embarrassing. Someone – presumably Mrs. Clinton herself – decided that the risks of deceit were less than the risks of disclosure. Is it probable that these were the *only* embarrassing items among those wiped from the Clinton server? The presumption at this point must be that the withheld evidence is strongly unfavorable to the person who withheld it. A litigant who acted this way would be subject to severe sanctions. A politician should suffer similarly.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.