Yesterday’s inspector general’s report condemning the email practices of former secretaries of state elicited scathing responses from both The Washington Post and New York Times.

In a Post editorial, titled “Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules,” the editors write:

> “Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 has been justifiably criticized as an error of judgment. What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them. … The department’s email technology was archaic. Other staffers also used personal email, as did Secretary Colin Powell (2001-2005), without preserving the records. But there is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications. While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules. In the middle of the presidential campaign, we urge the FBI to finish its own investigation soon, so all information about this troubling episode will be before the voters.”

A brief rebuttal: The Post erroneously claims Clinton’s obfuscation was “not illegal.” On the contrary, she’s guilty — probably of felonies, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Meanwhile, the Times, in a piece titled “Emails Add to Hillary Clinton’s Central Problem: Voters Just Don’t Trust Her,” writes:

> “[An]ny hopes Mrs. Clinton had of running a high-minded, policy-focused campaign have collided with a more visceral problem. Voters just don’t trust her. The Clinton campaign had hoped to use the coming weeks to do everything they could to shed that image and convince voters that Mrs. Clinton can be trusted. Instead, they must contend with a damaging new report by the State Department’s inspector general that Mrs. Clinton had not sought or received approval to use a private email server while she was secretary of state. It is not just that the inspector general found fault with her email practices. The report speaks directly to a wounding perception that Mrs. Clinton is not forthright or transparent. The Clinton campaign had hoped to use the coming weeks to do everything they could to shed that image and convince voters that Mrs. Clinton can be trusted. Instead, they must contend with a damaging new report… [S]omething has seeped into the electorate. A presidential campaign always contends with incoming fire, but it is also designed to serve as an infomercial to present a candidate’s best attributes. Instead, Mrs. Clinton has gone from a 69 percent approval rating and one of the most popular public figures in the country when she left the State Department in 2013 to having one of the highest disapproval ratings of any likely presidential nominee of a major party.”