Skip to footer

Democratic lawmakers criticize Clinton email investigations

By suggesting the investigations are unfair, they run the risk of providing fodder to GOP lawmakers calling for a special prosecutor to be assigned to the case.

|
Carolyn Kaster/AP
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign event at Hillside High School in Durham, N.C., on Thursday.
  • By Michael Biesecker
  • Deb Riechmann Associated Press

| Washington

A group of lawmakers objected Thursday to what they describe as the politicizing of two ongoing government reviews of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's email practices.

Four Democratic senators and three House members sent a letter to Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. The inspectors general are conducting separate reviews of whether then-Secretary of State Clinton and her top aides mishandled sensitive information in emails that passed through a private server in the basement of her New York home.

Republicans have sought to make Mrs. Clinton's email use a key issue in the presidential race, and in a debate this week the former secretary again defended her decision to use a private server to handle her work email. While Clinton has conceded her email setup was a mistake, she denies government secrets were ever endangered.

The Democrats, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Dianne Feinstein of California and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, questioned whether the investigations are being conducted in an impartial manner. They also chided the inspectors general for past errors in determining what material should be marked as classified.

"Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted," the lawmakers wrote to Mr. McCullough and Mr. Linick. "Already, this review has been too politicized. We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively."

Doug Welty, a spokesman for the State Department's inspector general, denied that partisan politics play any role in the investigators' work.

"At all times, State OIG operates as an independent organization, consistent with the law," Mr. Welty said. "Our work will continue to be unbiased, objective, and fact-based. We are now reviewing the email practices of the current and last four secretaries of State, not just Secretary Clinton. Any suggestion that the office is biased against any particular secretary is completely false."

The office of the Intelligence Community's inspector general has not replied to phone and email messages seeing comment.

By suggesting the investigations are unfair to Clinton, the Democrats run the risk of providing fodder to GOP lawmakers calling for a special prosecutor to be assigned to the case.

In addition to the IG reviews, the FBI has for months been investigating whether any laws were violated. The State Department has acknowledged that some emails included classified information, including at the top-secret level.

Clinton has said she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Democratic lawmakers criticize Clinton email investigations
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0310/Democratic-lawmakers-criticize-Clinton-email-investigations
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe