O’Malley: Clinton email controversy threatens to define Democratic Party

Martin O’Malley said Sunday that “legitimate questions” remain about fellow 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server from her time as secretary of State, and warned that the issue threatens to define the Democratic Party.

{mosads}“I believe that there are a lot of legitimate questions still to be answered about this particular controversy – the email, the email server, the FBI investigation and the like,” O’Malley said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

O’Malley has been fighting for the party to expand the debate schedule beyond the six that are currently on the docket.

He argued Sunday that more debates are necessary, particularly in light of Clinton’s email controversy, because the issue threatens to swallow the race for the Democratic nomination.

“It’s so important that as Democrats we start having debates about other issues as well,” O’Malley said. “I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate questions to be answered here by Secretary Clinton, but for our part as a party, we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down, that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”

“Otherwise, our party is being defined by Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and it’s not good for our country,” he added.

O’Malley on Sunday was also critical of Clinton for only recently announcing her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The former Maryland governor noted that he came out against the project last year, and alleged Clinton’s opposition was made out of political expediency and based on public opinion polls and focus groups.

“I came out against the Keystone pipeline over a year ago. Why? Because I believe it’s contrary to our nation’s best interests of moving forward to a clean energy future,” O’Malley said.

“That’s what real leadership is about,” he continued. “That’s the sort of new leadership we’re looking for. Not the sort of leadership that waits for poll numbers or focus groups or puts a finger in the air to see which way public opinion is going. No, that’s not leadership.”