13 Comments

"I’ve stated many times over the years that I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, just as lower-tier government officials like Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were. "

You ought to read what James Stewart reported in his fact-based book "Deep State." Stewart is both a lawyer and an investigative journalist. He is no partisan hack. In his fact-based book "Blood Sport," he reported facts that made both Clintons look amoral and possibly criminal.

Stewart reports that a team of FBI agents working on the Hillary e-mail case agreed that no prosecution was warranted. That was based on the case law respecting the statute and on the facts they had uncovered. The case law showed that there had to be some clandestine intent to walk away with classified documents without authorization. The most they could show was that Hillary's e-mails had a few documents with an encircled "c."

Sandy Berger obviously had clandestine intent. Otherwise, why would he stuff documents in his pants before leaving a secure area.? Gen. Petraeus showed highly sensitive, classified to a biographer, gave her notes on the documents and let her take pictures of them. Then he lied about it.

It's easy for laypeople and pundits with law degree to say someone should be prosecuted. But if you're the prosecutor in charge, you have a responsibility. And if you kowtow to the backseat drivers and to popular sentiment (as that NY prosecutor who got Trump indicted might have done), you and you alone must face the consequences.

Admittedly, with the national Attention Deficit Disorder and fever-pitched emotions, explaining nuances is like talking to the wind. But there must be a wall of sorts between the court of public opinion and the legal process.

Expand full comment
Jun 12, 2023·edited Jun 12, 2023

As far as I'm concerned, Trump should be in jail for inciting a riot on January 6, 2021, so I have zero sympathy for Trump now, with his latest self-inflicted legal wound.

That said, regarding Hillary, didn't she delete emails and scrub her personal server? Doesn't that constitute "intention and obstruction"? While the Hillary and Trump cases may be apples and oranges, the fact the DoJ went out of their way to NOT prosecute her does give at least a shred of credence to the Trump defenders' claims of a double standard. Certainly from a political perspective, if not a legal one.

Expand full comment

Get Trump by way of proving espionage without material evidence of damage. Get Trump without proving malicious intent. Get Trump where no reasonable prosecutor would charge Deep State’s friend, but will charge its political enemy. Get Trump where sloppy housekeeping is willful mishandling of class’d docs, and where Clinton destroying state’s evidence is gross negligence. Get Trump where an Expatriot judge from a country whose government confiscates its citizens’ farmland passes judgment for Deep State’s case. Get Trump on the same day the FBI discloses docs confirming foreign money transfers to Biden entities so as to shade its impact. Get Trump, as the protagonist of all things in this Stack’s opinion pieces. Get Trump so as to appease the DC country club where whose bread they eat is whose song they sing. Get Trump, so a DC insider with a better personality and controlled by donors can facilitate their well being. Get Trump, so as to get rid of the obnoxious load mouth notwithstanding superior well being metrics during his administration. Get Trump where personality is more important than policy. Get Trump, Get Trump, Get Trump.

Expand full comment

Trump loves chaos. It needs to it to remain relevant. Unfortunately his worshippers will back him 100% no matter what.

Expand full comment