Why the Hillary Clinton email probe was a sham from the start

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, N.J. on July 6.
(Mel Evans / Associated Press)

To the editor: Conor Friedersdorf got it right in one respect. Hillary Clinton did receive “elite treatment,” but not as he depicted. (“Hillary Clinton got the political insider treatment, and that’s a problem,” Opinion, July 6)

Her use of a private email server as secretary of State was revealed in a sham Benghazi inquiry by House Republicans, who then clamored for a federal investigation. The FBI acceded, although no evidence existed that Clinton had willfully emailed information marked classified to anyone. Nor was there evidence that she knowingly disclosed or transported classified information, much less for personal gain or to reveal state secrets.

The FBI inquiry confirmed this. It also found no evidence that Clinton’s server was hacked, despite repeated hacking of official State Department servers during her tenure.


FBI Director James B. Comey rightly concluded that no rational federal prosecutor would pursue the matter. Absent political pressure, the same may be said for even opening a federal criminal inquiry into Clinton’s mere “careless” conduct.

Mark E. Kalmansohn, Santa Monica

The writer is a former federal prosecutor.


To the editor: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but I am very concerned about Clinton’s judgment.

The president must make the toughest decisions and often must make them quickly. It is essential that he or she have excellent judgment, as the president’s decisions have national and international repercussions. They cannot be corrected by saying, “Oops, my mistake,” similar to what Clinton did after supporting the Iraq war and, more recently, with her email server.

I cannot enthusiastically support any candidate in this election. Despite my reservations about Clinton, I believe a Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous. It is a dilemma without a good solution.

James C. Morton, Anaheim



To the editor: Articles about Hillary Clinton mention how she is plagued by “past ethical questions.” Please explain what these are. All I know is that she was cleared in the Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate “scandals.”

It seems it is enough to repeatedly accuse someone for her ethics to become questionable.

Robin Hill, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook