I should’ve just used two accounts: Other views
(The Clinton campaign declined to provide an opposing view. On Tuesday, after the USA TODAY Editorial Board's "Hillary Clinton broke the rules: Our view" was published,CNN's Jake Tapper asked Clinton to respond. She said it was "obvious" that she has always put national security above personal self-interest.)
Hillary Clinton, in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd: “The report makes clear that personal email use was the practice under other secretaries of State. And the rules were not clarified until after I had left. But I’ve said this many times, it was still a mistake. If I can go back, I’d do it differently. And I understand people have concerns about this, but I hope and expect voters to look at the full picture of everything I’ve done and stand for, and the full threat posed by Donald Trump. And if they do, I have faith in the American people that they will make the right choice. ... I continued using my personal account for both work and personal emails because I did think it was convenient. However, I think it’s pretty clear looking back, what I thought was convenient turned out to be anything but. And as I have acknowledged, I should have just used two accounts.”
Hillary Clinton broke the rules: Our view
Charles Tiefer, Forbes: “The report released Wednesday by the State Department inspector general on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her. It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness — a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her.”
Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post: “The report suggests that Clinton at State was the queen bee, to be unquestioningly served by the hive. When department staffers raised concerns about Clinton’s server, the inspector general said, a senior official responded that ‘the mission ... is to support the secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.’ It is not fair to blame Clinton for this particular high-handedness — she was not involved in this discussion — but it is reasonable to ask what role she and her team played in creating this climate of acquiescence.”