A day after Hillary Clinton broke her long silence on the email scandal, the Associated Press is taking legal action, demanding the release of the former secretary of state’s emails.
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.
With its front page story exposing the fact that Hillary Clinton used her personal, private email account to conduct government business for the State Department, it was The New York Times that struck the match that started the firestorm that threatens to engulf Mrs. Clinton’s presidential aspirations.
Now, once again, it’s the Times going after the former secretary of state and setting the pace for continuing criticism in the left-leaning media, not to mention among Republicans lawmakers.
Following Hillary Clinton’s highly orchestrated news conference on Tuesday in which she tried to tamp down the flames from the hotly debated email scandal, The New York Times goes after Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she never discussed or disclosed any classified information in those many thousands of electronic communications managed on her personal server.
The Times article quotes a number of security experts and government insiders doubtful about Mrs. Clinton’s vehement assertion that classified information was kept out of her private email messages.
“A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that while it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton’s staff identified as involving government business.”
The Times notes that sending or storing government secrets in a non-governmental email account on a private server with questionable security would be a violation of secrecy laws.
Read more: westernjournalism.com