Apply the Hillary Clinton Rule to Donald Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Friday a federal magistrate judge unsealed the warrant for Mar-a-Lago, former president Donald Trump’s Florida home, which was searched by FBI agents last week. According to the warrant, the FBI was looking for evidence of crimes related to obstruction of justice, removal of official records, and the mishandling of information relating to the national defense.
I must confess, the search warrant gave me déjà vu .
On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey issued one of the most consequential statements in federal law enforcement history . He explained precisely why the FBI did not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling “defense information,” some of which was classified at the highest levels of secrecy.
That statement not only influenced the outcome of a presidential election, its legal, political, and cultural consequences hover over American life. Nobody who’s evaluating Donald Trump’s conduct should forget Comey’s statement, and its standards should govern us today.
The reason why relates to a fundamental conception of justice itself—that similarly situated people should be treated similarly. For example, if two men commit an identical crime, and one receives twice the punishment of the other, that disparity rightly violates our sense of justice and fairness even if the disparate sentences are technically legal (such as within a statutory sentencing range).
Here we have two people at the apex of American politics: one a former secretary of state and then-presumptive Democratic nominee for president, the other a former president and now-frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Both of them possessed immense classification authority (by executive order, Clinton had power to classify and declassify State Department information up to the “top secret” level ; as president, Trump possessed even greater authority). Both Clinton and Trump’s conduct implicated the same statute, 18 U.S.C Section 793 .
That statute imposes substantial criminal penalties on anyone who “willfully” or through “gross negligence” removes national defense information from its proper place of custody. It also imposes criminal penalties on anyone who “willfully” retains national defense information in an improper location and “fails to deliver it” to an “officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”
To understand the content and context of Comey’s statement, it’s necessary to walk back down memory lane and understand the essence of the Clinton email controversy. While the details are complicated, the basic story is simple. As Comey described it, Clinton set up and used “several different [private] servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.”
In plain English, this means that Clinton decided not to use government systems for a substantial part of her official email communications. That decision, by itself, was troublesome but not necessarily disqualifying. Public officials have frequently used private email for official business—sometimes because of convenience and sometimes because of technical challenges using official systems.
The real problem, however—the problem that implicated 18 U.S.C. Section 793—was that a number of the emails contained highly-classified information. As Comey noted, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters.”
Comey also said that “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
(This is one reason why the “but her emails” mantra from online progressives is so grating. What she did was serious, and pretending it wasn’t insults our intelligence.)
So why didn’t the FBI recommend charges? Here’s the key paragraph:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
I did not agree with this decision, and I said so in National Review and the New York Times . The problem is that Comey added elements to the statute. He essentially read “gross negligence” as a synonym for willfulness and added additional factors (such as obstruction of justice) to the prosecution decision.
If I had engaged in similar conduct when I was in the military, I would not have enjoyed the same level of deference . I would have been prosecuted, and I would have deserved prosecution.
But we can’t rewind the clock. We can only decide how to go forward. And so the DOJ should go forward with the same rule it applied to Hillary Clinton, including the same level of deference. Any other result wouldn’t simply be unjust—insofar as it would refuse to treat similarly-situated people similarly—it would be profoundly destabilizing. There cannot be one set of standards for Democrats and another for Republicans.
Would applying this same standard mean Trump, too, should not face prosecution? Well, not necessarily. We can’t yet conclude that Trump and Clinton’s misconduct is equivalent, and the reason why may relate not to the mishandling of defense information, but rather to obstruction of justice. ...
Trump lacks any real excuse for his behavior for retaining classified information, but Clinton had no excuse either. Remember, she used a private server to discuss matters that were classified at the highest levels, and she was seasoned enough to know exactly what she was doing.
Trump’s defense is as weak as Hillary’s. His team is reportedly claiming that he had a “ standing order ” to declassify all documents that he took to Mar-a-Lago, but as Philip Klein notes in National Review , this argument is “patently absurd”:
Consider all the times that Trump was at Mar-a-Lago during his presidency and worked out of there. Are we to believe that each and every document he brought with him there, no matter how sensitive, was immediately declassified and thus widely available for people to see?
Moreover, where is the documentary evidence for such an order? Declassification isn’t a mere mental process. So far there is more concrete evidence that Michael Scott declared bankruptcy than there is that Donald Trump declassified the top secret documents he held at Mar-a-Lago.
If Trump went beyond Clinton in his effort to conceal and cover up his misdeeds, including defying a subpoena and falsely asserting he’d turned over all the classified information in his possession, then he may face criminal consequences for obstruction even if his initial misconduct wasn’t materially different from Clinton’s.
The bottom line is deeply disheartening. Two of the most powerful and prominent politicians in the United States engaged in conduct that virtually any other American would be prosecuted for. They have placed the system under great strain, and the system is buckling.
It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump’s conduct was so much worse than Hillary Clinton’s that prosecution is both legal and just. Indeed the entire issue may be so fraught with peril that the DOJ may decide to merely seize the documents without any further legal proceedings.
Tags
Who is online
425 visitors
The author is an inveterate Trump hater offering common sense that has eluded this debate.
I've already had 2 here try to pretend that the Clinton investigation was real.
Of course it was real, Vic. If I remember correctly, it was held over a summer holiday weekend, with her lawyers present, and nobody bothered to swear her in. By the way, I still can't find a transcript of that "real" testimony.
Hillary was an angel compared to the evil Donny Darko.
Right because 'talking about' a TS/SCI topic in an email is exactly the same as removing and hording actual TS/SCI documents.
The seeded posit is utter bullshit.
I feel so bad. Everywhere you turn you seem to run into it.
I've noted that in your recent seeds and comments.
No, not everywhere.
When I do though, I call it out, just as I did here.
Calling it out?
Is that like trying to have the last word?
But should Trump be held to a higher standard than Hillary was? What she did was with willful intent
To date, there have been no particulars about Trump's involvement
Absolutely. Trump was elected POTUS was he not?
Opinion. Comey found otherwise.
Really?
So what else is new?
Which part of the statute makes that distinction?
Those documents were safer in a box in Trump's home than the documents Clinton had on her server in someone's bathroom.
Why no, Vic, NO it isn't.
BTFW, you and yours would have the last word when you cogently support your claims. Give it a try.
There is NO comparison, Greg.
Hillary Clinton responded to a subpoena, Trump did NOT.
Hillary Clinton voluntarily testified under oath at a Congressional investigative hearing for 11 hours, Trump hasn't testified for one second.
Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, Trump declined.
From the comments in this seed, it looks to me like the RW don't want Trump to be held to ANY standard at all.
10 investigations refute that claim. Not even Trey Gowdy could nail Clinton with intent. Just stop.
So, you don't believe what Trump is saying about this either. Good for you.
There were NO Top Secret documents on Clinton's servers or in her emails. There were emails where Top Secret subjects were TALKED about. PERIOD, full stop.
[Deleted]
Then that makes the emails top secret.
If you have ever served this country, you would have known that.
Then why did they release them bugsy?
Save your supercilious BS for someone you can impress.
Lol. among other classified material, some emails were classified as Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. .
Period.
Full Stop.
Try as you might, you can't deny reality.
Maybe Hillary declassified them? s/
Or maybe they went through the process to de classify them and the PROPER authorities decided they were not a security risk. Since Hillary was not president (thank God), she could not declassify them herself. HOWEVER, if they are mentioned in an email and not deemed unclassified before that process, then THAT email carries the same classification as the original document.
If you talk to someone about a secret document, then the person you were speaking to must have the clearance at least equal to the documents speaking about.
I wonder how many of Hillary's lackeys with Confidential or Secret clearances illegally saw those Top Secret documents?
If you don't appreciate the education from someone who served, then I can't help you...
But I tried.
If you don't think Trump had the intent to remove the documents then you are delusional.
Link?
Oh, so now there's a 'process to declassify them'. Who knew? /s
Actually, as SoS, she could.
Well gee bugsy, after 10 investigations and millions spent, one would think that at least ONE of the reports should have an answer to that for you.
What I don't accept is your uninformed and bias opinion. Are your trying to excuse that just because you served?
There have been many particulars regarding Trump's involvement in multiple crimes over many, many, many years.
Of course there are, he has lived for "many, many, many years.
More like calling a piece of shit liar a piece of shit liar.
The SoS has the authority to classify and declassify Department of State information
up to and including TS and she was communicating on the DoS server.
In general, the Secretary of any Department or any Agency Head has the same authority.
Hope you appreciate the education.
Hillary Had Authority to Classify and Declassify Information (dailykos.com)
Really.
That might have been funny had Merrick Garland been the AG for the last 30 years.
Y'all have CDS AND HBDS yet have the absolute gall to say we have tds
It's Projection, Deflection, and Denial Syndrome also to the ultimate extreme
But, but, but Hillary. All. You. Got.
Tiresome
Talk about tiresome.
Well,as I see it, if the first asshole evades your grasp, you had better make sure that you catch the next asshole. The sour grapes come when it is your guy who is "the next asshole." Tough shit.
The fact is, if Durham had any kind of dirt on Obama, you can be assured that this would not be the first time that a Presidential house was searched, or maybe he has more decorum than the rest of you partisans who promise revenge once the party gains power. In any event, the partisans would be howling for blood. As a matter of fact, they are howling, attempting to defend an obviously lying sack of shit.
All of your arguments are contrived from the same root: If you didn't lock her up, than you cannot lock the Donald up. Sorry, but one fuck up does not need a much larger fuck up piled on top of it.
So when are we going to clean up the mess instaed of continuously making it worse?
Dennis please use the blockqoute tool on the tool bar, the very first tool to the left of the word paragraph ( two inverted comments designating a quote )
It isn't the author's, nation owner's or the Mods responsibility.
Hillary was never a criminal.
She was just a victim of far right wing fascist lies and inuendo.
Trump has been a serial criminal and liar his whole life.
Hillary Clinton was damaged goods,q in the opinion of many, from the moment she "stood by her man".
She was credible as a Senator and I feel that she did well as SoS.
Her waffling back and forth on the emails and her evolving stories lead me to believe that, like her husband, she couldn't fess up and tell the truth.
I do not feel that she was the best choice for the D's.
Was she criminal? She may have acted wrongly, but I know that she wasn't even in the same league as the guy who could kill someone on fifth Ave and still get elected.
Have you no shame? Does your hypocrisy know no bound?
Name one criminal offense that Trump was convicted of.
Comey all but said she was and even gave a list of her offenses in his press briefing. He also said that no prosecutor at the time wanted to end up like Vince Foster and Seth Ryan and the several dozen other people that have crossed the Clintons.
And her unsecured emails were more than likely hacked by foreign hostile actors putting the national security of us at great risk.
Your claim is refuted by the Comey statement which the seeded article relies on:
You actually think Comey is credible?
And the leaker/liar Comey's statement is countered by the experts:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton’s private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.
At least 47 of the emails contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton’s server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel."
Is this RW strawman argument day here on NT.
The seeded article relies on the Comey statement, characterizing it as:
It also states that:
So, the seeded article gives Comey's statement credibility, NOT anything that I said Jeremy.
Oh and BTFW, I note that you failed to refute the fact that I block quoted, instead posting a personal comment about ME. Way to stick to the MO Jeremy.
Calling it consequential does not mean it is relying on it as truth. It means it could be damning as well:
Consequential
adjective
Your claim is refuted by the Comey statement which the seeded article relies on:
No, it's not. Comey didn't say it wasn't hacked. He said there was no "direct evidence" it was hacked which would mean they found indirect evidence that it was. Comey knows how words worked. If there was no evidence, he would have said that.
Which is what makes it all the more laughable. The head of the organization that lied to judges to get warrants that amounted to nothing. but wasting time and taxpayer money.
I ask you 1 simple question and you still haven't answered that.
Yes, because he was a Republican until 2016, now "independent". /s
So, your author thinks 'its standards should govern us today' because it's false and damning?
Ridiculous Vic.
I find it sad and hilarious that you and 5 others can't seem to follow a 4-comment thread.
Hell, even Sunshine voted that clueless shit up even though SHE/HE was the one that claimed Clinton's emails were 'more than likely hacked by foreign hostile actors'.
Reading is fundamental Sean.
I encourage your thumbs up buddies to try it too.
You still laughing Jeremy?
Seriously, the actions of ONE Agent do not reflect on the quality of the whole Agency Jeremy.
You and yours insist that is true for police officers and members of the military every chance you get. Why is the FBI different for y'all?
Other than calling them out for what they are, I do not respond to strawman arguments Jeremy. It's an unworthy game I don't waste my time on.
If you have a question about what I ACTUALLY posted, ask it.
I find it sad and hilarious that you don't know the meaning of the word refute.
Nothing like adding irrelevant shit in a feeble attempt to sound funny.
[Deleted]
you should pay attention to the details and not the talking points.
And yet here you are.
I find it hilarious that you devolved to the level of questioning my vocabulary. Did the 6 of you come to a consensus that you'd just pretend that your comment wasn't utter bullshit? Did Sunshine get a vote?
You should contribute some details instead of talking points.
Truncating my comment to pretend to make a point is childish.
Oh the irony.
It's the US governments favorite thing isn't it?
The US military proudly leads the way with wasteful unaudited spending,
should we bitch about that forever too or doesn't that fit the narrative?
Sure call me out for multi tasking here as well as teleworking for DoD. Next thing is you will want spyware on the network to track my surfing grounds while on the clock.
Sorry, collateral damage?
I hear the biggest waste is actually in logistics and software that doesn't work.
After that 2017 debacle, the Pentagon is the only agency that hasn't passed an audit
yet, but I do understand why it is near impossible.
Government sw is among the worst. Between Congressional and DoD documentation requirements and the developmental model that is a slow, deliberate, heal to toe process of requirements and material development, we had to the cost and release SW at the speed of irrelevance. It’s an entire eco system and culture that must be replaced.
You've got old 68 year old men like me that really don’t know the best commercial industry practices making recommendations on expensive portfolios.
necessity is the ignition source for invention.
All eyes should be on Ukraine.
A fifteen year old started a drone war and the Ukrainians are adapting
and overcoming.
I and my teammates are watching Ukraine very closely.
TG they've been training with us for 7 or 8 years.
Hillary's server was much more secure than those at state. She knew that.
The state department servers had been hacked. Hers hadn't been.
Of course everybody knew this many years ago (even far right wing fascists.)
The fact that ignorant idiots still bring this up means they have nothing present day.
That's such bullshit. Her "Expert" was asking for help on Reddit for basic tasks and her system was less secure than gmail.
he fact that ignorant idiots still bring this up means they have nothing present day.
You just claimed her system, in defiance of all expert testimony, was more secure than the governments. You should never, ever call anyone an idiot.
What is that assessment based on?
How would you know that. What detection SW did she have loaded?
Does not give her the right or authorization to have and keep classified information on an unapproved and unsecure server.
Pity that all they have is Hillary
and Hunter Biden
Joe Biden ain't no bargain. He is almost as bad being the "big guy" in Hunter's schemes and payoffs.
Clinton testified before Congress for hours, under oath, without taking the fifth one time. When Trump can do that then we'll talk about treating them equally.
That doesn't make sense on any level. Putting aside your assault on the bill of rights, she did not testify before congress about her mishandling of classified information. You are conflating her appearances.
When she spoke to the FBI while being investigated for violating the espionage act, her dodge was to claim " she did not remember" dozens of times.
Clinton sure as fuck did testify about her handling of classified documents during her 11 hours before the Congress.
I don't recall her pleading the fifth either - about 400 times.
She didn't have to. She just lied And lied knowing that no one would come after her and what the consequences were for those that did. Isn't that right Vince, Seth and Jeffery?
Your usual whack job conspiracy theory 'contribution'
[deleted]
The fact that you're coming back to Hillary means that you can't attack Biden for anything.
Clinton testified about Benghazi, not her mishandling of classified information.
"I do not recall"; "I don't not remember"; and the ever famous "At this point what difference does it make anyways.....":
That wasn't testimony; that was obstruction and denial.
It was once again a moment that was taken completely out of context.. The entire quote:
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Taken in context, the quote doesn't mean what the right wing has been pushing since the statement was made.
Sorry!
The only thing they know how to do is take things out of context (when they're not just making things up).
You mean democrats taking Trumps statement out of context " There are fine people on both sides"?
If by "they" you mean liberals, then you would be correct.
To be fair, both sides do it but the right definitely rides that horse into the ground for decades if it serves their purpose. They are still screaming about "BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!", YEARS after the fact and after 9 republican led investigations turned up NADA. Not shockingly, the investigations all stopped literally the day after the 2016 election, proving that they were politically motivated.
Who is?
The only person I have EVER heard mention Benghazi in years, ANYWHERE, is JBB on here.
No one else.
He recognizes and enjoys the nice ring to the name, similar to Ben Gazzara who was excellent in The Big Lebowski.
Seems you didn't watch the damn link! It had the full damn quote.
It was bullshit pure and simple. It was her denying any responsibility what happened, period. Of course she doesn't give a fuck why it happened. Understanding why it happened could have implicated her and Obama in running guns w/o congressional approval from Libya to Syria.
What wonderful things did they discover that will prevent this from happening again? Maybe pick a more secure location; provide better security; and not advertise to locals as much when you are running guns? Come up with a better damn lie than a video that no one knew about until the Obama administration made a big deal about it? Watch who are sending guns to they might turn out to be Jihadists set on our destruction?
Taken in context it is the same old bullshit that we see from all politicians when they don't want to answer the damn question!
Good God, no decent self respecting Administration would run guns to other countries would they?
Or should we say which Administration hasn't?
Trump was praising fascist brown shirts. Neo-Nazis.
One would have to be bugsy to misinterpret that reality.
So you are claiming to be bugsy now?
Funny, the only people I see bringing up Benghazi are the liberals.
Of course all the investigations into Trump have so far turned up nothing except for the fact that it was the Clinton campaign that requested and paid for the false Steele report and several fraudulent warrants yo are OK with that though
When? Where? Please provide a reputable un biased link please.
Other than Clinton having nothing to do with all this in the first place
More projection, deflection and denial from trumpturd's seemingly endless crimes
True. I inadvertently implied that Trump could ever be an equal to Clinton. That's not the case.
Not even Trump could get as low as Clinton.
Trump lies thousands of times over and over and over again.
Can't recall Hillary lying even once.
Fuck all far right wing liars.
You have a poor memory. Just off the top of my head I remember that they found 100s of classified emails on her server after she said there were none and after she claimed she turned over all documents back to the government. I also remember her telling everyone how she came under sniper fire when visiting the former Yugoslavia.
Maybe some ginkgo galoba might help you.
It hasn't helped you to remember that is ginkgo biloba.
Well I will remember the spelling next time Herr Feldsturmfuher
Oh, it's a 'spelling' error?
BTFW, use my screen name when addressing me.
[deleted]
Trump attempts to use a Truth Social post to make a legal request for the DOJ to give Mar-a-Lago-raid documents back
Trump on Sunday demanded the return of some documents taken in the raid at Mar-a-Lago.
He made the request in a Truth Social post, appearing to mistakenly think it had legal force.
Trump was reacting to a Fox story claiming some of the documents may be privileged.
Former President Donald Trump over the weekend made a demand for documents taken by the FBI to be returned to him — via a Truth Social post, rather than his lawyers.
The former president made the demand on Sunday . It seemed worded as if Trump expected it to have legal force.
"Oh great!" Trump wrote. "It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged 'attorney-client' material, and also 'executive' privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken. By copy of this TRUTH, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!"
Dumb shithead wasn't supposed to have the documents in the first place, "he knowingly should not have taken"
His 'attorneys aren't doing him any favors if they're the ones telling him this nonsense.
Coming from a guy who has never, ever told the truth, that is funny.
Not the news.
Tucker Carlson Calls Trump’s Theft of Nuclear Secrets Less Worrisome Than Hunter Biden’s Use of Joe’s Netflix Password
“If both of these things happened, what Hunter did was far worse,” Carlson said.
By Andy Borowitz