Hillary Clinton's Protective Crouch

"I thought it was allowed," Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer after the report was released. The governing regulations "were not a model of clarity." Using personal email was "the practice under other secretaries" -- as if Thomas Jefferson himself set up a private server at Monticello, when the report makes clear that, actually, only Colin Powell behaved similarly, far earlier in the email era.

How, how, how could Clinton & Co. -- this is a massive failure of staff as well -- have failed to reconsider the permissibility, not to mention the wisdom, of this practice? Not long before she became secretary, the George W. Bush administration had found itself skewered over White House officials' improper use of personal email to conduct government business. Skewered by, among, others, Hillary Clinton, who railed against "the secret White House email accounts."

Still, astonishingly, the Clinton team did not bother to check what the rules allowed, even though she "had an obligation" to do so, and the policy was that "normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized" system. Had Clinton or her aides bothered to ask, the report says, she would have been turned down.

Perhaps. Another revealing aspect of the report is the culture of enabling surrounding Clinton, within her inner circle and trickling down. This is not unique to her; the natural bureaucratic impulse is to satisfy the new boss, to accommodate her needs.

But a leader also shapes that impulse, by sending, or having her staff send, explicit and implicit messages about the toleration for pushback. 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.

The greatest irony here may be that the Clintonian urge for privacy produces the opposite of what she needs. Clinton as candidate has done best when she allows the real person inside to poke through the protective shell. Clinton improves when her "personal" becomes accessible. She continually disserves herself by striving to shield.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.