David Harsanyi, The Federalist:
Hillary Clinton will reportedly address the controversy over her private account while at the State Department today. The framing of the Clinton email/pay-to-play scandal, though, is proceeding as expected. We’ve gone from pretending the offense is nothing to pretending it’s nothing more than a “self-inflicted wound” – a problem of faulty decision-making rather premeditated misconduct. For many, this isn’t about corruption, it’s about the Clinton’s personal peccadillos – laziness, an abundance of caution, and inherent need to help others no matter what the consequences.
Even Ron Fournier, a critic of Clintons’ behavior – one who feels compelled to tell us how much he likes the former first couple; but a critic nonetheless –implies that Hillary’s aversion to transparency is a personal failing that can be fixed if Hillary would just do the right thing: return all the money and release all the emails. It can’t.
Focusing on Clinton personal indulgences – “entitlement, outsized victimization, and an aggravating belief in the ends justifying the means” – is fine, but if anyone else had done the same the focus would be the potential corruption not the emotional troubles of the subject. “Corner-cutting,” at least as I understand the term, suggests that someone is making an effort to save money, or find easier ways to accomplish a difficult task. How is setting up a private account exclusively for official business as secretary of state – on an Internet server registered to your home in Chappaqua – easier than using a government provided email server?
Unless Fournier means that building a fiefdom within government to conduct business in the dark is easier. Then yes.