Below is my column in USA Today on the striking similarities between Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton, particularly with regard to the staffers surrounding them. Both tended to blame others about being, to paraphrase Nixon, “kicked around.” However, there are deeper and rather disturbing patterns emerging that are shared by the two leaders in my view.
It has taken almost 50 years, but the Democrats have finally found their inner Nixon. Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the most Nixonian figure in the post-Watergate period. Indeed, Democrats appear to have reached the type of moral compromise that Nixon waited, unsuccessfully, for Republicans to accept: Some 71% of Democrats want Clinton to run even if indicted.
While Obama could be criticized for embracing Nixon’s imperial presidency model, his personality could not be more different from his predecessor. Clinton however is the whole Nixonian package. On a policy level, her predilection for using executive and military power is even coupled with praise for (and from) Nixon’s secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. However, it is on a personality level that the comparison is so striking and so unnerving. Clinton, like Nixon, is known to be both secretive and evasive. She seems to have a compulsive resistance to simply acknowledging conflicting facts or changes in position. She only makes admissions against interest when there is no alternative to acknowledging the truth in a controversy.
Clinton’s history of changing positions and spinning facts is now legendary. Indeed, a video entitled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight” has become an Internet sensation with millions of viewers. Polls show Clinton with record lows for her perceived honesty and trustworthiness. (In fairness, Trump fares little better). Clinton seems entirely comfortable denying facially true facts. For example, she spent much of a year assuring the public that she was fully cooperating with investigators into her use of an unsecure server for her communications as secretary of State. Indeed, she used her claimed cooperation as the reason that she would not answer more questions. When the State Department Inspector General issued its highly critical report on the scandal, many were shocked to learn that Clinton not only refused to speak at all with investigators but so did her top aides. Where Clinton repeatedly said that her use was allowed by the State Department, the report said that the rule was clearly violated, she never received approval for such a security breach and that a personal server would never have been accepted.
Of course, politicians are not known for their allegiance to the truth, and Clinton may be a standout in that group, but she is hardly unique among her peers. However, that tendency is often checked by a staff that forces politicians to recognize reality and even the truth of controversy.
The problem is that Clinton has surrounded herself with aides who have demonstrated an unflagging loyalty and veneration. Take Huma Abedin, perhaps her most influential aide. Abedin described her first meeting on the “Call Your Girlfriend” podcast: “She walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected, and I just remember having this moment where I thought; ‘Wow, this is amazing. And … it just inspired me. You know, I still remember the look on her face. And it’s funny, and she would probably be so annoyed that I say this, but I remember thinking; ‘Oh my God, she’s so beautiful and she’s so little!'”
Adebin’s breathless account is similar to communications of other aides who fawn in emails to Clinton over her speeches, dress and demeanor. In the released emails, former National Security Council adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall asked that an aide pass along her praise of Clinton’s performance at a hearing:
“If you get a chance — please tell HRC that she was a ROCK STAR yesterday. Everything about her ‘performance’ was what makes her unique, beloved, and destined for even more greatness. She sets a standard that lesser mortals can only dream of emulating.”
(In 2014, Sherwood-Randall was made the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy.) Emails from other close aides like Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal show the same level of constant stroking and exaltation.
It is certainly true that Washington’s powerful have always attracted a circle of sycophants. Indeed, the most powerful figures often seem to need continual stroking from underlings and there can be a race to the bottom as aides outdo each other in their adoring rhetoric.
What is so concerning is that Clinton seems to invite such expressions of absolute loyalty and reverence. The question is whether there is a John Dean willing to walk into her office and tell her of a cancer growing within the White House. After years of scandals and investigations, Clinton has distilled a team down to the truest believers who have little difficulty repeating truth-defying spins or refusing to cooperate with investigators.
Indeed, recently, top Clinton aides took the notable step of agreeing to be represented by the same lawyers in both the criminal and civil investigations into the email scandal. That is a move that can greatly assure a more uniform account in the testimony of Clinton aides. It is also a move that rejects potential conflicts between aides in both their recollections and interests. In the most recent depositions, that joint counsel instructed key aide Cheryl Mills to simply refuse to answer most of the questions about the reasons and arrangements made for the use of a personal server at the State Department. So far Clinton’s top aides have remained a uniform front.
It is hard not to think of Nixon aides like John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman in the “palace guard” surrounding Nixon. They should be a cautionary tale for all of these aides. Ehrlichman would later look back and marvel at the loss of his own sense of self and independence: “I, in effect, abdicated my moral judgments and turned them over to somebody else.”
My greatest concern is not that a President Clinton will continue a pattern of false statements but that her aides will gradually forget the difference between what is true and what is not.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
For once I would like to see a trained reporter actually list the known crimes Klinton has committed-not arrested for, because we know she is teflon right now and no one will touch her,
but instead of talking about her sex life which is fruitless and only make her look like a victim which she plays on, talk about what we know she has done, and is awaiting a real investigation, e.g., Foster murder and coverup, drug running, use of MKULTRA sex slaves, banking/real estate fraud, treason etc.
How can you assume Clinton is the least dangerous? She has helped put WWIII on our doorsteps and legions of dead across the world that owe their fate directly to policies she has championed. Trump may be a dope, but Clinton’s body count is starting to get her into elite territory.
slohrss29 writes, “How can you assume Clinton is the least dangerous? She has helped put WWIII on our doorsteps and legions of dead across the world that owe their fate directly to policies she has championed. Trump may be a dope, but Clinton’s body count is starting to get her into elite territory.”
That’s how I see her, too. Why Issac doesn’t see that is strange, indeed. He’s a smart fellow.
As for the lesser of two evils, here’s why Issac and PhillyT shouldn’t vote for Hillary:
Yada, yada, yada, lesser of 2 evils. Now, give the man some poutine. At least we don’t have a stupid, pretty boy, French-Canadian who brutally elbows women on the floor of Parliament. He’ll be gone soon.
I don’t like Clinton. I am in awe of how an imbecile like Trump even got this far. The Republican party is so dysfunctional-they eat their own-they pose the greatest danger to the US. Bernie is simply too far off the beam, even if most of what he says is idealistically best.
In the end it comes down to a choice between Trump and Clinton. Turley seems to be going for Trump. That places him in the lower half, intelligence wise, or a Hawking stated supporting the demagogue to the lowest common denominator. Or he is simple a muckraker without brakes.
Clinton is the least dangerous and the most efficient choice to take the helm. If the Senate reverts to the Democrats and the Congress eventually, as the Republican party continues to implode, the US just may see some distance travelled on the road into the future. As it is, there’s no going back.
And, Turley and the rest of those looking for rust in all places, America has never been more transparent, more just, more law abiding, and more self conscious. I grew up during Nixon, Johnson, etc. Clinton’s shortcomings don’t hold a candle to theirs. Her connection to the Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam. There is no comparison between Clinton and Nixon.
Turley, you should dedicate your vitriol to the basic problems that cover all politicians, money. Work to end this oligarchy and leave Clinton alone. Enough easy pickings, cheap shots, and shallow commentary. If Trump gets in the oligarchy will worsen, but you will have much more to whine about. The question is will you whine if Trump gets in?
I agreed with the vote on Iraq, so the only disagreement I have with her is that she gave up trying to educate the public as to why the vote was correct. Bush and his invasion, which was not needed even under the resolution and the total mess he made out of it, makes a reasoned defense of that vote hard to get across to most of the public. Bush was right to get the resolution and wrong to attack after the inspectors had gone in which was the purpose of it. I have never gotten an answer to those who objected to the resolution when I ask just how they would have gotten the inspectors back in without a massive military force capable of invading. That shows me not that she is a warmonger, but a typical politician who caters to the public perception of things.
I have to laugh at those who think the Clinton’s are tough and vicious. The FACT is that they have gotten attacked because they are weak. The prime example was so called Travelgate in which an audit turned up screwed up accounts, and mishandling of funds. So they fired the travel office personnel and hired a personal friend travel agency to run it. There was nothing wrong or illegal about this, since they were not civil service and worked at the pleasure of the President. Yet the Clinton’s caved in on this. They should have told the critics to go to hell and let it go.
Randyjet writes, “I agreed with the vote on Iraq, so the only disagreement I have with her is that she gave up trying to educate the public as to why the vote was correct” You might want to explain to her why that vote was correct. She’s flipped (or is it a recent evolution) again, declaring it before god, corps and country that it was a mistake. If she’s elected, she’ll be flipping once a week.
Marjorie Cohn – The Nuremberg Charter defines “Crimes Against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” Bush’s war on Iraq is a war of aggression, and thus constitutes a Crime Against Peace.
http://marjoriecohn.com/a-war-of-aggression-from-cowboy-republic-six-ways-the-bush-gang-has-defied-the-law-2007
Can you imagine the discussion taking place in 1788 over potential candidates for President? Do you think they were asking which candidate would be the better of the available evils? We are “progressing” in the absolute wrong direction.
Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for her War Crimes.
She voted for the Senate Vote On Passage: H. J. Res. 114 [107th]:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/Senators2.htm
The War in Iraq is a War of Aggression, War Crime
Marjorie Cohn – Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing . . . To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Justice Jackson labeled the crime of aggression “the greatest menace of our times.” Over 50 years later, his words still ring true in Iraq.
http://marjoriecohn.com/a-war-of-aggression-from-cowboy-republic-six-ways-the-bush-gang-has-defied-the-law-2007
Maybe the way to bring down Hillary would be to compare her to Jimmy Carter the farter. Nixon was not all that bad.
Who is Ronald Rump?
I don’t like Hillary. But Prof. Turley’s morbid obsession with her is amazing. How about some posts on the legal aspects of Ronald Rump’s attack on the federal judge and on the syncophants who surround Ronald. And don’t forget Ronald’s donation to the current AG of Texas after his office dropped the investigation of Rump University in a manner that was unusually favorable to Rump because no restitution was sought.
Or have your House Republican clients told you that you can’t go there?
jonathanturley:
“She only makes admissions against interest when there is no alternative to acknowledging the truth in a controversy. Clinton’s history of changing positions and spinning facts is now legendary.”
As Patriot (@musicman27103) alluded to, a prime example of Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for brazen spin is her ‘evolving’ position regarding her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF (Public Law 107-243) in response to partisan pressure.
Clinton’s latter position is that she voted for the 2002 AUMF as Senator to provide the President the necessary leverage for “coercive diplomacy” to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the UN inspections, which is partially correct.
However, as her latter position ‘evolved’ under partisan pressure, Clinton subsequently misrepresented the operative enforcement procedure that defined the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom in order to disclaim her Senate vote with accusation that the decision for OIF abused the 2002 AUMF.
That accusation is incorrect on the law and facts. The evidence shows that the decision for OIF hewed to Congressional instruction in the 2002 AUMF.
The essential defect of Clinton’s latter position is she mischaracterized the operative historical context for the UNSCR 1441 inspections, the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) that was enforced under the 2002 AUMF, the Congressional instruction to “ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” (P.L. 107-243), the UNMOVIC findings in the UNSCR 1441 inspections, the UN Security Council consideration of the UNMOVIC findings, and the standard for the determination to use force in section 3(b) of the 2002 AUMF by which President Bush determined to use force with OIF.
While mischaracterizing the UNMOVIC findings that confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441), which were the principal trigger for OIF, Clinton ignores the various other fact findings that also confirmed Saddam was in material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates enforced under the 2002 AUMF.
For example, the Iraq Survey Group reported, “ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs” and “the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions” in breach of UNSCR 687 et al, the Iraqi Perspectives Project reported, “evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime” in breach of UNSCR 687, and the UN Commission on Human Rights reported, “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq” in breach of UNSCR 688.
In addition, Clinton’s later claim that her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF opposed Iraqi regime change elides section 4 of the 2002 AUMF, which invoked section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and “expected” regime change would result from Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
To properly assess Clinton’s latter ‘evolved’ position on her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF and the decision for OIF, see the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for OIF. The scope of Clinton’s misrepresentations are wide enough that I can only recommend reviewing all the answers in the explanation for a sufficient understanding of the 2002 AUMF and the decision for OIF to judge her.
The sad, tragic aspect of Clinton’s spin is that she made the correct decision in her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF based on the standing law, policy, and precedent that had matured under her husband’s frustrated efforts to enforce Iraq’s compliance with all of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates. Given her proximity to President Clinton’s administration-long struggle with the Saddam problem, Senator Clinton likely understood the gravity of Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (President Clinton) at least as much as, and likely better than, President Bush.
Rather than ‘evolve’ her position on her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF when her choice was correct in the first place, America, our allies, including and especially Iraq, and she herself would have been better served if she had instead set the record straight on the why of the Iraq intervention and stood up for her right decision and the justified mission.
Paul, #Crooked Hillary is fun on Twitter.
tnash, Good to see you back. Yes, this must be a vast right wing conspiracy.
Clinton and Obama were negligent in appointing Inspectors General for several departments, including State. There was NO IG for the entire tenure of Hillary @ State. That’s how this went on. And, when an IG was appointed, she did not cooperate and told her people not to cooperate. Pretend, in your addled mind, what would happen if this were almost anyone else, or certainly any Republican. The MSM would be creating special shows just to cover the story. The MSM would have scream for an Independent Counsel be appointed.
Patriot (@musicman27103):
“War Criminal…Hillary Clinton voted to attack Iraq;”
Actually, Senator Clinton voted for the 2002 AUMF (Public Law 107-243) to enforce Iraq’s mandated compliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) of the Gulf War ceasefire, including but the (WMD) disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 per the “enhanced inspection regime” of UNSCR 1441.
To switch off the enforcement threat, Saddam simply only needed to comply and disarm as was mandated by the terms of ceasefire he had agreed to abide by in 1991 in order to suspend the Gulf War short of regime change. Instead, Saddam chose not to comply and disarm in his “final opportunity to comply” with “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions” (UNSCR 1441) and thereby triggered the resumption of the Gulf War with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On the law and the facts, Hillary Clinton’s Senate vote for Public Law 107-243 and the President’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom were correct. The casus belli for Operation Iraqi Freedom was the Saddam regime’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire with the evidential failure to cure Iraq’s “continued violations of its obligations” (UNSCR 1441) in its “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
See the answers to “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?” & “Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?”.
Also see the answers to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?” & “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?“.
Turley has shown that he either forgets or ignores the actual crimes Nixon committed. Clinton so far has failed to come close to anything Nixon did. He created a team of thugs to break and enter numerous people homes and businesses. He used the FBI to commit multiple crimes against his enemies. I some friends of mine in the Hartford anti-war movement who were the subject of illegal activities on the part of the FBI. They went to the family’s bank and demanded the financial records from the bank about their money matters. The bank refused absent a court order. In the old day, such a request would not have been refused, but since the family was one of the banks biggest customers, they were more afraid of them and obeyed the law. He ordered false flag ops against himself at his appearances which while not illegal, is nothing close to what Turley alleges that Clinton is like.
Then Nixon or Kissinger ordered the murder of US citizens in Chile who knew too much about CIA activities in the coup. Those who were murdered did NOTHING violent or illegal, yet they had to die by their order. Let me know when Clinton does such a thing, and I will not be voting for her.
randyjet – will you still vote for Hillary if they indict her with a RICO suit?
While some of Turley’s points are valid, he goes off the deep end when he says Trump fares LITTLE BETTER in opinion polls? I have yet to see anything CLOSE to the whoppers Trump has told That shows a clear lack of judgment. Then the good prof fails to answer or even ASK the question, if it were such an egregious breach of regs How did her violations go on for YEARS? If she broke the rules, then there sure as hell needs to be some heads rolling at the State Dept Security office. It was NOT a secret to all. It was not even close to the dodge Bush and HIS administration used in going through the RNC computers to get around the government records act. I will join the chorus denouncing Clinton, when Bush, Rice, Powell go to trial FIRST! NOT before.
As for the complaint about Clinton boasting about gettting Kaddafi, I find that to be a red herring and that I can hardly think of a more deserving guy to meet such a fate. Of course, all of our Reagan sycophants will forget about THEIR praise for what Reagan did. Reagan decided that a terrorist bombing of a GI disco was the fault of Kaddafi. He then killed the young daughter of Kaddafi in the bombing. At least Clinton got the SOB instead of his kids. Trump of course would have gotten the whole family and more. All of our Clinton critics here would CHEER killing those innocents, so I have to laugh at such stupid criticism of Clinton.
Ah, threw out the red meat today Johnny boy, What about Trumps RICO trial? Ya know the one with Trump U………..Very sad that this site has gone so far over the edge…
To fund a War of Aggression is War Crime. Many U.S. politicians are War Criminals in funding and supporting all the U.S. / Israeli Wars of Aggression.
Steve, Good anecdote. Being in Arkansas during the summer is not pleasant. I spent 7 summers in KC and it was tough. We would go to Oaklawn in Hot Springs for the Arkansas Derby in the Spring, a good time to be in Hot Springs. Nice, old track. A buddy who still goes tells me they have Vegas style gambling there now. I love to gamble but I like keeping venerable race tracks pure. C’est la vie.