Your editorial "Just what Clinton needs: Another email scandal" (July 26) noted that "the last thing the Clinton campaign needed at the start of the Democratic National Convention was a scandal — even one for which it was not responsible — to reopen the wounds of Sanders supporters."
How can you possibly know at this point that Ms. Clinton and her campaign were not responsible for rigging the Democratic Party primary process?
Logic suggests that there was only one obvious beneficiary of the scheme, and that was Ms. Clinton herself. Can you state for a fact that Ms. Clinton or her campaign staff didn't dangle an enticement — say, a possible cabinet position — to prompt DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to engage in contest fixing?
Was Ms. Wasserman Schultz the instigator of the operation, or was she merely a tool manipulated by others? Have you actually investigated who knew what and when? Or is it enough simply to take Ms. Clinton's word for it that she didn't "know anything about these emails?"
Given her lack of candor in the past about events that might reflect negatively on her, I find your myopia regarding this matter especially troubling.
Thomas G. Judkins, Catonsville