The first part of his response shouldn't be news. The fact that a presidential cabinet secretary uses his official .gov email account in carrying out his duties isn't extraordinary. In fact, it's not even plain-old ordinary; it's required. But because Julian Castro is rumored to sit atop Hillary Clinton's running mate wish list -- thanks to his identity, not his qualifications or accomplishments, it seems -- he found himself on the receiving end of this question. Thus, his answer constitutes news (via CNN's State of the Union and the Washington Free Beacon):





CNN: Do you use private email accounts?



Castro: I have my government email account -- of course I have my private email, but I have my government email. But that's besides the point. I think...



CNN: Do you do government business on the government account?



Castro: That's right. That's right.

Here, Castro does the best he can. He notes that of course he uses private email like everyone else, but he conducts official business over official email, as the rules compel him to do. The fact that certain other individuals may not have felt quite as constrained by those rules is "besides the point," he assures us, setting up the predictable "distraction!" talking point in defense of his party's presumptive nominee. Evincing anything less than utter respect for the requirements governing his public communications would have caused problems for himself and his current boss, but underscoring the importance of playing by the rules would reflect poorly on his potential future boss. Such is life when one feels an obligation to protect the Clintons. The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway digs through the first batch of Hillary's emails (released just before a holiday weekend, not coincidentally) and identifies four "sketchy" things therein. Among them is absolute radio silence on Amb. Chris Stevens' urgent memos about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Less than a month before he was murdered, Stevens warned that the US compound couldn't sustain a coordinated attack. Was Sec. Clinton asleep at the switch over a major vulnerability in country that she saw as central to her foreign policy legacy, or were pertinent emails deleted? Remember, the communications we're now beginning to get a look at exclude all of the emails Hillary's inner circle unilaterally decided to destroy.To recap: Hillary Clinton improperly established a secret email server to exert total control over her public emails. She used an account as Secretary of State that her lawyers told Congressional investigators didn't exist. Her team deleted tens of thousands of emails without any independent supervision, then reportedly wiped the server clean. Hillary and Bill Clinton's foundation accepted major foreign contributions that were never disclosed, in violation of ethics and transparency requirements. Their "slush fund" also failed to report tens of millions in income from foreign governments in tax filings over multiple years. And today we discover that Bill Clinton set up a secret LLC "pass through" company to hide income derived from his consulting services -- income that was also not disclosed . One detects a patter here, no? Will the Clintons carry off this hit parade of deliberate opacity, unethical behavior, and potential criminality with impunity because it's all "besides the point," or "old news," or whatever the justification of the day may be?