An AP reporter did some digging and found out Congress doesn't have any rules for saving official email.
Members of Congress who are demanding Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails are largely exempt from such scrutiny themselves.
Congress makes its own rules. It never has subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked.
There's also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after.
That's in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch. Official emails there are supposed to be retained, though the controversy over Clinton's use of a personal email account while secretary of state has exposed vague and inconsistent requirements from one agency to another.
But if the rules at federal agencies are unclear, at least there are rules. On Capitol Hill, there are almost none.
So the same House Republicans who are subpoenaing Clinton's emails as part of their inquiry into the Benghazi, Libya, attacks are not required to retain emails of their own for future inspection by anyone.
The article points out that Congress tends to have more openness in its proceedings than the executive branch, but it can keep private anything it wants to, and individual congressmen can destroy any of their own records they want to. The article quotes a spokesman for the Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is leading the latest(!) Benghazi investigation saying the difference is the executive branch enforces laws. True, but it's not like making laws is some minor function, and it would be nice to know when corporate special interests are having undue influence. I realize such instances can be described as "always", but might be nice to know just who is being influenced how.
Sen. Jeff Flake was quoted saying constituent email is different, and that makes sense. A constituent could be corresponding with a congressman over a private matter with every reason to expect and deserve privacy, but surely rules regarding email could account for that. The executive branch already has rules regarding the handling of personal information. Surely Congress could make a distinction between official records and protecting constituents' privacy.
Not that handling email is entirely black and white. Email might be conceived of as just the electronic replacement for paper memos, but all of us who use it are aware of something else, namely that email needs to be explained to Lindsey Graham. And that it's become a substitute for short conversations. If every line of a conversation is recorded for eventual perusal by just anybody, then no one will use email because of the risk they'll be accountable for the worst ideas they ever considered, no matter how quickly discarded. Government is different than business or personal correspondence because of that blurred line between a conversation and an official document that needs to be a public record, and apparently the rules are still not figured out.
This doesn't quite let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her controversy, but she does get to make a charge of hypocrisy at Republicans given the lack of rules for Congress and how Republicans have held it almost the entire time they've had email, so the lack of rules is on them --- not that hypocrisy will stop Republicans going after her for it, as we've already seen. Democrats can point out in her defense that at least the State Dept. had some rules, unclear or inadequate as they might be (though she will have to own up that she didn't get it fixed at the State Dept. when she was secretary). Republicans will want to conspiracy-monger based on her deleted email, but we might ask what would show up if we could see what congressmen deleted.
So Hillary's email will remain merely a minor scandal. A Hillary-defender's concern remains how she got into it and she handled it. For someone so hounded by critics, it's worrisome she didn't realize she was setting up her email in a way likely to inflame suspicions she was hiding something when she set up her own private email, when she didn't put it in the State archives right away (State allowed all staff to decide which email was official and needed retaining, but they were supposed to do it right away), and when she deleted everything she didn't turn over. From a campaign point of view, she waited a week to address it and explained it in a way that sounded like dodging. Why couldn't she respond the next day and explain State's rules? More than an explanation about the email, I'd like an explanation of why the controversy was handled this way. It's not like there won't be more controversies, and how a campaign responds is vital.
cross-posted on MN Progressive Project