Former AG Catherine Cortez Masto is Backing Clinton Despite Legal Scrutiny
The full extent of the email scandal now engulfing Hillary Clinton’s candidacy continues to become clearer to the public as we learn more from this week’s report from the State Department Inspector General. This has been creating more and more headaches for supporter Catherine Cortez Masto, who is now in the precarious position as a former top state law enforcement official standing behind a candidate with a clear disregard for the rules. Last night, the Las Vegas Review-Journal weighed in on Clinton and her scandal, asserting that “she could indeed be vulnerable to legal consequences.”
Yesterday, while visiting Nevada, Clinton answered questions on her private email, saying that “it was allowed” by the State Department, defending her actions by claiming that “personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state.” But as usual, Clinton’s words don’t meet the facts. The IG report specifically state that she did not receive approval from State security personnel:
“Clinton aides told the inspector general that she used her own system because she did not want her private emails to get leaked. Contrary to what the report says, Clinton has claimed that she got permission from the department to utilize her personal account for job-related messaging. Officials at the State Department, though, said “Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements.” (“Hillary Clinton can’t shake the shadow of her emails”, The Los Angeles Times, David Horsey, May 27, 2016)
While Clinton tries to mitigate the fallout from the damning revelations of the IG report, she continues to stonewall, refusing to fully admit her wrongdoing while feigning compliance:
“The stonewalling creates a firm impression, well captured by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this week when he interviewed Clinton’s spokesman, Brian Fallon: “If she didn’t do anything wrong and she had nothing to hide, why didn’t she cooperate with the inspector general?” (“Why the new report on Hillary Clinton’s email is so damning”, The Washington Post, Dana Milbank,May 27, 2016)
Clinton’s dishonesty not only serves as an indictment of her character, but also that of the candidates who support her. What message does it send that Catherine Cortez Masto, who proudly touts her experience as a former two-term Attorney General, would even consider standing behind someone could face legal punishment? How can she claim to be someone working to fight Washington corruption when she closely associates with someone like Clinton who personifies it?
Catherine Cortez Masto kept a low profile during Clinton’s visit to the Silver State, but she owes Nevadans an explanation. With new information exposing Clinton as dishonest and potentially criminal in her actions, why does she continues to stand by Hillary Clinton?