No, it’s not about her emails.
Republicans’ reflexive reaction to the devastating indictment of Donald Trump has been to retreat to the familiar corner of whataboutism: How could Trump be criminally charged for his handling of classified information when others, most notably Hillary Clinton, escaped indictment?
The biggest problem with this argument is that it is flat-out wrong. The circumstances of Clinton’s emails and Trump’s boxes are not remotely similar, no matter how loudly Trump and his allies insist otherwise. Trump’s behavior is far more egregious.
And even if the situations were more comparable — they aren’t — that would scarcely justify turning a blind eye to Trump’s behavior. If, as the chanters insisted, Clinton should have been locked up, where is the outrage about Trump’s conduct?
Ruth Marcus: The classified documents indictment is a stunning display of Trump’s narcissism
The proof of my point was brought home over the weekend in the diverging reactions of Republican politicians and conservative lawyers.
ADVERTISING
The politicians — see Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — fulminated about private servers in basements and hammers taken to Blackberries, two elements of the Clinton episode that, helpfully for the GOP cause, sound more sinister than they were.
“Most Republicans believe we live in a country where Hillary Clinton did very similar things and nothing happened to her,” Graham told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. “I don’t like what President Trump did in certain aspects,” Graham allowed. But he appeared to be more worked up over the fact that Trump was charged under a law formally known as the “Espionage Act”— “espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous” — even though the indictment never uses that word and instead cites “willful retention of national defense information.”
The lawyers who have read the indictment have been appalled — not by prosecutors’ supposed overreach but by Trump’s alleged behavior, both his carelessness with classified material and his efforts to prevent the government from taking it back. “If even half of [the indictment] is true then he’s toast,” Trump’s former attorney general, William P. Barr, told Fox News’s Shannon Bream. “It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning.” The “idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous,” he said.
Skip to end of carousel
It’s been a long seven years, so let’s review the Clinton case, and tick through the critical differences. I have no brief for Clinton’s behavior in setting up a private, insecure email server to get around the State Department’s clunky, antiquated email system. It was sloppy, and Clinton made matters worse when she had her lawyers unilaterally erase 30,000 emails they deemed personal.
But: Clinton didn’t keep classified documents or transmit them on the server. Rather, the emails sent on the server referred to classified information; they did not, with the exception of three email chains that had a paragraph or two marked “(C),” for confidential — contain other flags that the material was classified.
If anything, there was “evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information by writing around the most sensitive material,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in a June 2018 report on the Clinton investigation. And to the extent that classified information was discussed on the private system, investigators found, that was done with other government employees, for official purposes.
In addition, prosecutors did not find indications of any intent to obstruct in the Clinton lawyers’ deletion of the emails they decided were personal. They “concluded that there was no evidence that emails intentionally were deleted by former Secretary Clinton’s lawyers to conceal the presence of classified information on former Secretary Clinton’s server,” Horowitz reported.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
FBI and Justice Department employees were unanimous in recommending against charges, the report said.
As then-FBI Director James B. Comey put it at the time, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring such a case. “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,” Comey said. “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.”
ADVERTISING
Confronted with Trump’s conduct, with his deliberate retention of classified material and his extensive reported efforts to thwart the investigation, no reasonable prosecutor would fail to file charges.
As set out in the indictment, Trump improperly brought with him to Mar-a-Lago hundreds of highly classified documents, negligently stored. For more than a year, he rebuffed officials’ efforts to recover the material. He knew the documents were classified — he’s on tape saying exactly that. He engaged in an elaborate, hide-and-seek game with his own lawyers, shuttling boxes in and out of storage areas, in a seeming effort to keep his own attorneys from cooperating with the FBI. He had them submit a false affidavit swearing all the classified material had been returned — when hundreds of documents remained.
Prosecutors are supposed to treat like cases alike. These are not like cases, no matter how loudly Graham and other Trump apologists proclaim otherwise.
Republicans’ reflexive reaction to the devastating indictment of Donald Trump has been to retreat to the familiar corner of whataboutism: How could Trump be criminally charged for his handling of classified information when others, most notably Hillary Clinton, escaped indictment?
The biggest problem with this argument is that it is flat-out wrong. The circumstances of Clinton’s emails and Trump’s boxes are not remotely similar, no matter how loudly Trump and his allies insist otherwise. Trump’s behavior is far more egregious.
And even if the situations were more comparable — they aren’t — that would scarcely justify turning a blind eye to Trump’s behavior. If, as the chanters insisted, Clinton should have been locked up, where is the outrage about Trump’s conduct?
Ruth Marcus: The classified documents indictment is a stunning display of Trump’s narcissism
The proof of my point was brought home over the weekend in the diverging reactions of Republican politicians and conservative lawyers.
ADVERTISING
The politicians — see Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — fulminated about private servers in basements and hammers taken to Blackberries, two elements of the Clinton episode that, helpfully for the GOP cause, sound more sinister than they were.
“Most Republicans believe we live in a country where Hillary Clinton did very similar things and nothing happened to her,” Graham told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. “I don’t like what President Trump did in certain aspects,” Graham allowed. But he appeared to be more worked up over the fact that Trump was charged under a law formally known as the “Espionage Act”— “espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous” — even though the indictment never uses that word and instead cites “willful retention of national defense information.”
The lawyers who have read the indictment have been appalled — not by prosecutors’ supposed overreach but by Trump’s alleged behavior, both his carelessness with classified material and his efforts to prevent the government from taking it back. “If even half of [the indictment] is true then he’s toast,” Trump’s former attorney general, William P. Barr, told Fox News’s Shannon Bream. “It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning.” The “idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous,” he said.
Skip to end of carousel
Ongoing investigations involving Donald Trump
It’s been a long seven years, so let’s review the Clinton case, and tick through the critical differences. I have no brief for Clinton’s behavior in setting up a private, insecure email server to get around the State Department’s clunky, antiquated email system. It was sloppy, and Clinton made matters worse when she had her lawyers unilaterally erase 30,000 emails they deemed personal.
But: Clinton didn’t keep classified documents or transmit them on the server. Rather, the emails sent on the server referred to classified information; they did not, with the exception of three email chains that had a paragraph or two marked “(C),” for confidential — contain other flags that the material was classified.
If anything, there was “evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information by writing around the most sensitive material,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in a June 2018 report on the Clinton investigation. And to the extent that classified information was discussed on the private system, investigators found, that was done with other government employees, for official purposes.
In addition, prosecutors did not find indications of any intent to obstruct in the Clinton lawyers’ deletion of the emails they decided were personal. They “concluded that there was no evidence that emails intentionally were deleted by former Secretary Clinton’s lawyers to conceal the presence of classified information on former Secretary Clinton’s server,” Horowitz reported.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
FBI and Justice Department employees were unanimous in recommending against charges, the report said.
As then-FBI Director James B. Comey put it at the time, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring such a case. “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,” Comey said. “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.”
ADVERTISING
Confronted with Trump’s conduct, with his deliberate retention of classified material and his extensive reported efforts to thwart the investigation, no reasonable prosecutor would fail to file charges.
As set out in the indictment, Trump improperly brought with him to Mar-a-Lago hundreds of highly classified documents, negligently stored. For more than a year, he rebuffed officials’ efforts to recover the material. He knew the documents were classified — he’s on tape saying exactly that. He engaged in an elaborate, hide-and-seek game with his own lawyers, shuttling boxes in and out of storage areas, in a seeming effort to keep his own attorneys from cooperating with the FBI. He had them submit a false affidavit swearing all the classified material had been returned — when hundreds of documents remained.
Prosecutors are supposed to treat like cases alike. These are not like cases, no matter how loudly Graham and other Trump apologists proclaim otherwise.
