Republican
National
Committee
FROM: RNC
Research Director and Deputy Communications Director Raj Shah
TO: Interested Parties
RE: Don’t Let Team Clinton’s Weak
Spin Stop The Tough Questions
Reports about the ethical missteps of Hillary Clinton and her family
foundation have been mounting for weeks. A shocking
New York Times report
on
her
exclusive
use
of
a
private
email
address
to conduct all official
business—in an apparent violation of federal guidelines—has pushed
these controversies onto front pages and broadcast news coverage.
Team Clinton’s reaction is a tried and true pattern: (1) hide the
candidate, (2) baselessly claim that reports are false, and (3) release
a series of talking points detached from reality. The talking points
are so bad, in fact, that we almost sympathize with spokesman Nick
Merrill who must be cringing every time he hits send.
This deny-and-distract strategy might actually work, however, if
journalists don’t continue pressing for answers to the many serious
questions that have been raised.
And it’s not just Hillary Clinton and her team who need to answer.
It’s also the Democratic Party that is ready to coronate her as their
nominee.
Missing Emails
In Monday night’s bombshell report, the Times called Hillary
Clinton’s email practices “alarming to current and former National
Archives and Records Administration officials” and “a serious breach.”
The story raises serious questions about transparency, ethical
judgment, and national security.
In their pushback, Team Clinton made a
litany of absurd
claims in one statement, all of which are easily debunked.
First, they claimed that on “government business, [Clinton] emailed
[State Department staff] on their Department accounts, with every
expectation they would be retained.” By the next evening, their story
changed. It was revealed that top Clinton State Department aides Huma
Abedin and Phillipe Reines
had similar private
accounts. Team Clinton changed their tune, now saying only
“90%” of emails
were saved.
Team Clinton claims she was following precedent from former Secretaries
of State, but none of her predecessors was quite as brazen. None went
as far as to refuse to set up an official email account altogether.
Team Clinton claims they’ve furnished private emails to the State
Department upon request, and under pressure, Clinton has now tweeted
that she wants to the State Department to release them, but with the
Clintons controlling the emails released, does anyone believe
controversial or politically damaging ones were handed over?
In the most ridiculous claim, they say Clinton acted in “the letter and
spirit of the rules.” If you plan to follow the “spirit” of full
transparency, you don’t register a new server that will house all of
your government emails at your Chappaqua mansion a week before you are
sworn in to be Secretary of State. This was a premeditated attempt to
skirt the rules.
Clinton had an opportunity to address many of these questions
personally at galas the past two nights, but she didn’t bother. She’s
hoping that by avoiding questions she won’t be held accountable.
Questions Raised About The Clinton
Foundation
Even before the email controversy, Team Clinton was already in
damage-control mode over the Clinton Foundation. They circulated
talking points in response to a series of stories about
the foundation’s questionable fundraising practices,
including taking foreign government donations while Hillary
Clinton was Secretary of State and the Clintons’ many conflicts of
interest.
This was already a change from Team Clinton’s pattern of “no comment”
on all things Clinton Foundation. That alone should encourage
journalists to keep raising questions.
Team Clintons’ claims were familiar for their failure to address
reality. Let’s break down their pushback:
First, they claim, “The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropy,
period,” and imply that none of its activities could benefit the
Clintons personally. While the foundation may fit all the legal
requirements for its non-profit status, its activities, which include
employing political aides, donor maintenance, and financing the
family’s private jet travel, dovetail nicely with their political and
personal interests. No one denies that the foundation
does charitable work, but some of its practices conveniently
overlap with the family’s future political plans, and this overlap
deserves closer media scrutiny. Indeed, the foundation’s finances
have been a source of “unease" within the organization itself,
according to the New York Times.
Second, Clinton’s spokesman claims that there are no
examples of unethical behavior and that they have a strong commitment
to transparency. In reality, the
Clintons only agreed to an ethics review policy at
the “behest of the Obama administration,” according to
the Wall Street Journal. The agreement was riddled with loopholes
and offers limited transparency, and the foundation has
admitted to the Washington Post that it violated
that very ethics agreement by not submitting a foreign
government's donation for ethics review while Hillary Clinton was
Secretary of State. What’s more, as soon as she stepped down as
Secretary, the foundation began dropping some of these rules, even
though Clinton is gearing up for a presidential campaign.
Third, Team Clinton claims there has been no evidence
of any conflict of interest. Yet according to
the Wall Street Journal, "At least 60 companies that lobbied
the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26
million to the Clinton Foundation.” That is the definition of a
conflict of interest.
Ultimately, the Clintons are trying to silence critics by
suggesting that anyone who dares to question the
foundation’s practices—
including journalists—is anti-charity.
Surely an organization committed exclusively to charitable
work—and not at all concerned about politics—would not have to resort
to such crass, ad hominem attacks.
Hiding From The Press
Don’t be fooled by the Clintons’ strategy of deny-and-distract. While
embarrassing to Mr. Merrill, it is intended to shield the candidate and
get reporters to focus elsewhere. On the Clinton Foundation and her
missing emails, journalists need to keep asking questions.
It is also time for Hillary Clinton’s fellow Democrats to respond. Do
the President and Vice President support her actions? Do sitting
Senators feel she followed the law? What about her would-be primary
challengers?
And ultimately, the candidate herself must answer for her actions in a
substantive and credible manner—even if it’s weeks or months before she
actually appears before the press.
