USA Today: "Clinton's penchant for secrecy: Our view"

[Attorney in Texas]

link; excerpt:

A year after Hillary Clinton’s private email system was first disclosed, nearly all of the attention is focused on how many of the previously hidden emails contained classified information and how much legal trouble the former secretary of State and current presidential candidate might be in.... But the original sin is neither complicated nor open to partisan misinterpretation. It involves compliance with the federal open-records law known as the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

President Obama explained the principle himself on his first day in office in the first line of a presidential order on FOIA: “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” The same day, Clinton was confirmed as secretary of State. Disregarding the spirit of Obama’s directive, she created a highly unusual private email system that had the effect of shielding her official communications from the public, nosy reporters and her political enemies in Congress.... if she had read just two paragraphs into her boss’ memo, she'd have known that her motive was irrelevant: “Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve.” In other words, convenience does not trump openness.

For the next four years, what Obama had ordered should be public was, instead, shrouded in secrecy. Clinton didn’t just ignore the commander in chief, she ignored the FOIA law, which her own party worked mightily to strengthen in the years after President Nixon’s Watergate scandal.... members of Congress, like reporters and the public, had a right to access Clinton’s emails as part of their investigation regardless of motive. ... Today, thousands of Clinton’s State Department emails have been published in batches as a result of lawsuits brought by journalists and political activists to enforce FOIA requirements. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a President Clinton appointee, said last month that the "case is about the public's right to know," and that the State Department's handling of Secretary Clinton's server created at least a "reasonable suspicion" that open-records laws were violated... By shining light on the actions of government officials and exposing these actions to political opponents and journalists alike, the law is designed to encourage public servants to act with integrity. ... The Democratic front-runner's penchant for secrecy, despite protestations that it was all inadvertent, raises significant questions about her commitment to transparency were she to reach the White House.

[peacebird]

1. "raises significant questions about her commitment to transparency were she to reach the White House

[PatrickforO]

2. Or, to maybe reword a bit...

The lack of transparency in a Clinton White House. Because there wouldn't be any.

[Downwinder]

3. All comes down to judgment.

[tk2kewl]

4. as in making sure no can exerciser judgement of Clinton

keep everyone in the dark - even Obama

[Attorney in Texas]

9. understatement of the campaign so far

[Mike__M]

5. I wonder why the Republican candidates

have been debating the size of Trump's fingers, instead of the size of Clinton's commitment to transparency.
Why, oh why?
Seems like they would want to pry around there. Maybe they'll get around to it later. Hm?

[kgnu_fan]

6. ....

[pdsimdars]

7. You, sir, are totally mistaken, didn't you know, she is ABOVE the law!

[pdsimdars]

8. A real "team player"