With her 21-minute press conference admitting she should have had two phones for her e-mail practices, Hillary Clinton wants to put the matter behind us, the media wants to move on, and it looks like Americans are going to be forced to watch the Clintons dodge another scandalous bullet.
But during his guest appearance on Thursday’s Special Report With Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer supplied a different take: too much is in play, and too many people want her e-mails for the scandal to simply disappear into oblivion.
According to Krauthammer, Clinton has much to fear legally speaking, as "three committees in the House are going to sue to get access or subpoena her emails."
As if that wasn't bad enough, she may have placed herself in political checkmate with a governmental separation document she was required to sign before she left the State Department, which demands that she turn over all governmental documents. "If she signed it, its perjury. If she didn't, then she left with government documents, which is illegal."
Krauthammer harbored no illusions that the Clintons are above reviving the wordplay of the 90's, "I'm sure the Clintons will invent a parsing of the words, `it depends on what a document means....It depends what is is.'"
However, Clinton has another problem on her hands. It's not just the government that is after her, "the AP has now sued the State Department to get access to her emails."
The transcript of the exchange is below:
BRET BAIER: The Democrats on the Hill who are saying "Oh, come on this is just nothing. It's over. She said she should have had two devices, let it go."
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not over. It's got legs. It's got long legs. It's got legs because the AP has now sued the State Department to get access to her emails. Cause three committees in the House are going to sue to get access or subpoena her emails. Because we are now in a position where we're arguing over what is the proper meaning of the word "is." I said that a week ago and I did it as a joke.
KRAUTHAMMER: With the Clintons you can't make this stuff up. We're actually returning to " it depends what the meaning of the word is is." And I think what the Judge has explained, and what Shannen Coffin, who used to work at the Justice Department, has raised is a very serious issue. If she did not sign the document, then what she did, the one on separation, then what she did is to leave without turning over government documents, which I believe is a felony. I don't see how you can interpret either way. If she signed it, its perjury. If she didn't, then she left with government documents, which is illegal. So now we have the legal issues. And I'm sure the Clintons will invent a parsing of the words, "it depends on what a document means."
KRAUTHAMMER: "It depends what is is" but I do want to say one thing about what the Obama people are saying in astonishment. I suspect that "what the hell?" is the loose translation of what they actually said.