Based upon the current demand to see "all" of Hillary Clinton's e-mails -- personal and governmental --it takes only a little thought to see that the demand to see "all" of any governmental officials records is boundless.
Follow me below...
The current media concerns with Hillary Clinton are based upon her e-mails while serving as Secretary of State.
Let's begin by remembering that the "e" in "e-mail" stands for electronic. People today have the ability to use electronic mail messages that are stored and save forever, but regular mail can also be stored and saved forever.
Many people believe that Hillary Clinton should have only conducted governmental business on her governmental e-mail account. OK, let's presume that she had done just that. Would she not also be allowed to have had a private e-mail account for her personal matters? And if she is allowed to have a private e-mail account for personal matters what prevents anyone from accusing her of using that permitted personal e-mail account to conduct government business? Why cannot any governmental official be accused of having a governmental account, but really using their "private" e-mail to conduct governmental business? When such an allegation is made why cannot the public then demand to see all of anyone's personal e-mail "just to be sure?"
If you can demand private e-mail why cannot you demand private mail? While Hillary Clinton certainly had official letterhead at the Department of State, what would prevent anyone from saying "She never really used the official letterhead and mail, but used her private mail to conduct government business?" And because they accuse her of using her private mail to conduct governmental business they then demand to see it "just to be sure."
If you can demand private mail why cannot you demand private facsimiles? While Hillary Clinton certainly had an official facsimile number at the Department of State, what would prevent anyone from saying "She never really used the official facsimile number, but used her private facsimile number to conduct government business?" And because they accuse her of using her private facsimile number to conduct governmental business they then demand to see all those facsimiles "just to be sure."
If you can demand private facsimiles why cannot you demand private phone calls? While Hillary Clinton certainly had an official phone number at the Department of State, what would prevent anyone from saying "She never really used the official phone number, but used her private phone number to conduct government business?" And because they accuse her of using her private phone number to conduct governmental business they then demand to see the records "just to be sure."
There appears to be no privacy that remains for our governmental officials.
Is such a result what we really want?
No matter what business any governmental official may conduct through "official" channels there is always the possibility that they could have used private e-mails, mail, facsimiles or phone numbers to conduct "official" business. This leaves every governmental official open to accusation with the only defense to be "turn over all your private stuff and we will decide if you are telling the truth."
Why cannot we accuse the Secretary of the Treasury of using his personal e-mail to conduct official business and demand to see it?
Why cannot we accuse the Secretary of Defense of using private mail to conduct official business and demand to see every letter he has written or received?
Why cannot we accuse the Secretary of the Interior of conducting official business through his private facsimile and demand to see every facsimile sent or received?
Hillary Clinton is not the only governmental official who can have all their communications demanded for "us to sort through."
This case will set an interesting precedent. Will all future governmental officials, at whatever level, have to have each and every one of their communications --be it e-mail, mail, phone or facsimile -- reviewed by a "neutral" third party to assure it is truly "personal?"
If a governmental official does not subject themselves to such scrutiny are they not always allowing themselves to be subject to second-guessing?
In short, what,if any, right of privacy does a governmental official still have left. If you can demand e-mail why not demand regular mail? What is the interest of the public in such communications anyhow? While it may be an interesting historical record someday, should we not allow people in government to retain their privacy?
The questions presented by this current issue, to me, are far more complicated then the politics which surround Hillary Clinton. It will be fascinating to follow this matter to see if the real hard policy questions get asked.
I look forward to your thoughts on this topic.