The legal storm that is brewing around Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential nominee, former Secretary of State and former First Lady of the United States, just might become murkier, if a D.C. appeals court ruling establish a precedent on a public servant's use of private email to conduct government-related communications.
The two cases have no connection with each other. Real Clear Politics examines the complexities of what is now being called the "Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal." The article asserts that Clinton's storage of over 1,300 government classified documents on her private server, as well as her transmittal of them through her private email was a violation of the law. Her actions bypassed government's prevailing security systems and standards that enforced cyber-security and thus could have compromised national security. They also were intentional and not accidental or inconsiderate behavior because Clinton had been doing this for years. Depending on its findings, the Justice Department can actually file criminal charges against her.
Meanwhile, as described by Politico, the D.C. Circuit appeals court is deliberating the case of John Holdren, White House Science and Technology adviser, who asserts that his emails in a private server are beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Holdren's office had declined the requests from the Competitive Enterprise Institute to access his email associated with the Massachussets-based private organization, Woods Hole Research Center.
A district court ruling by US Justice Gladys Kessler supports Holdren's position, but the D.C. appeals court is now is inclined to reverse that ruling. A reversal could set a precedent that would send judiciary ripples that will inevitably trickle to the Clinton email-related litigation.
Although mainstream media have not played up the Clinton case, the National Review warns that it's only a matter of time before all the aspects of her litigation, including possible criminal prosecution, will cause the electorate to view her character with a more critical eye. The latest polls say that only 23 percent believe she has integrity and trustworthienss.
