Politics & Policy

Rigged 101

Clinton at a campaign stop in Salinas, Calif., Mayr 25, 2016. (Mark Avery/Reuters)

Hillary Clinton has scored a highly characteristic political “victory” — namely, not getting indicted.

During a political season when “rigged” has been the most emotive description of the economy and political system, Hillary and her enablers have conducted what appears to be a seminar in Rigged 101.

First, Bill Clinton had an impromptu “social” meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If Bill is a much reduced figure, he still has his unfailing instinct for the inappropriate. The confab was followed up with a report in the New York Times that Hillary might keep Lynch on as AG, as if to remove any doubt about Lynch’s conflict of interest.

The FBI interview with Hillary occurred on the Saturday of a long July 4th weekend, the best day for bad news to drop short of Christmas Eve. The FBI immediately leaked that there would be no charges, advertising that the interview was only about checking the box.

Finally, a mere three days later, FBI director James Comey issued a stinging indictment of Hillary’s conduct in the case coupled with a discordant statement of absolute opposition to an indictment. It came just in time for President Barack Obama’s inaugural joint campaign appearance with Hillary later that day.

If Hillary’s abysmal numbers for honesty and trustworthiness don’t drop further, people aren’t paying attention. The e-mail episode bears all the hallmarks of a Clinton scandal.

The Clintons always move the ethical goal post so that anything short of prosecutable criminality is supposed to be considered acceptable.

They rely on mincing distinctions. To such classics as “I didn’t inhale” and “it depends on the meaning of ‘is’” can be added the latest distinction without a difference, courtesy of Comey, this one between “extremely careless” (his characterization of Clinton’s conduct) and “gross negligence” (the standard set out in the relevant criminal statute).

 

Comey clearly concluded that Hillary is simply too big to indict.

They fall back on staggered defenses as they are steadily rendered inoperative. “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky” becomes, “Now that you mention it, I did, only you can’t impeach me for it.” Or, “I didn’t send classified material” becomes, “I meant that it wasn’t marked classified and even if it was, hey, it’s not a crime.”

Comey argued that Clinton shouldn’t be prosecuted for violating the law in the absence of aggravating factors compounding her offense. A less generous account of her conduct would find such aggravating factors: She set up her e-mail system to evade federal records laws and freedom-of-information requests; she lied about why she set it up; she persisted in her private system despite being warned about its perils.

Comey clearly concluded that Hillary is simply too big to indict. A major political party has, for reasons that will escape most observers, put all its eggs in her basket. Hillary isn’t a fresh face, a bipartisan healer, or a transformational figure. She is a barely adequate political talent with exceptional survival skills honed over decades of scandal. In other words, she is Michael Dukakis with a broken ethical compass.

At their joint appearance in North Carolina, Obama did all he could to pretend Hillary had fired up the crowd. Then, he stepped up to show how it’s done. In basketball terms, it was a little like watching Steph Curry play a game of 21 with the second-string point guard on the Washington Generals. Just not fair.

Both political parties this year have chosen corrupting nominees. Republicans fully on board the Trump Train must routinely defend the indefensible, or at least avert their eyes from it. In the Clintons, Democrats are in bed with two operators whose idealism long ago got inextricably mixed into a toxic stew of ambition and greed. 

The e-mail scandal shows that the Clintons play by their own rules and assume, correctly as it happens, that they are famous and powerful enough to escape the worst consequences. But that is, as she and her husband like to say, old news.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. ©2016 King Features Syndicate

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

White House

Nikki Haley Has a Point

Nikki Haley isn’t a Deep Stater. She’s not a saboteur. She wouldn’t undermine the duly elected president, no siree! That’s the message that comes along with Haley’s new memoir With All Due Respect. In that book, she gives the politician’s review of her career so far, shares some details about her ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More