Orange is the New Black: Clinton Complained Of Being “Shivved” By Comey

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on latest statement on the cause of her electoral defeat . . . other than herself.  Clinton’s use of prison lingo is only marginally better than her curious decision to compare herself to Cersei Lannister,the murderous, incestuous queen in Game of Thrones.  Notably, after the column posted, it was confirmed that there were roughly 3000 government communications found on Weiner’s laptop — leading to the re-opening of the investigation. As noted below, the belated discovery (and the delay in resolving the controversy) can be laid at the feet of Clinton and her staff.  The Clinton team delayed turning over material and participating in interviews.  Their disclosure of material was incomplete and ultimately lead to the “shiv” referenced by Clinton.

Here is the column:


Perhaps it was her orange pantsuit that so many lampooned or Trump’s constant mantra of “lock her up,” but Hillary Clinton appears to be auditioning for the new season of “Orange Is The New Black.” Clinton recently complained that former FBI director James Comey “did shiv me, yeah.” The shiv in this case was the letter on the reopening of its investigation into Clinton’s emails that Comey sent to Congress 11 days before the presidential election last year, a letter that she blames for costing her the win. Clinton’s reliance on the Comey letter is dubious at best.

Ironically, it was Comey’s earlier press conference closing the Clinton probe that has raised the greatest ethical issues. In comparison to her other self-inflicted wounds, the October letter was a shiv short of a viable excuse for Clinton’s defeat. Clinton’s gritty reference of being shanked on the political prison yard is only the latest addition to a long list of causes other than herself for a disastrous defeat.

Many believe that Clinton was the worst possible candidate and perhaps the only major figure that could have lost to Trump. In an election that was expected to be the most anti-establishment in history, Democratic leaders engineered the nomination for the ultimate establishment figure and a politician with record negative polling, even before the email scandal.

Clinton then magnified those problems with what many voters viewed as a thoroughly unauthentic demeanor and tendency toward evasion. On issues ranging from her still undisclosed Wall Street speeches to her past legal controversies to her email scandal, Clinton continually changed her rationales and deflected responsibility. After the election, Clinton alternatively blamed sexismracismself-hating womendomineering boyfriendsRussian hackersBernie Sanders, and of course, James Comey.

From a legal perspective, it was fascinating to see Clinton select the October letter as opposed to the press conference in July 2016. The focus of most of the criticism of Comey has been this press conference, where he cleared Clinton after a one-year investigation into their email scandal while also criticizing Clinton’s handling of sensitive and classified information.

Comey noted that the actions of Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and that the emails did include classified information, including “top secret” information. He declared that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he did not view the case as worthy of prosecution. He further acknowledged that his press conference was irregular, but “in this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”

Comey’s clearing of Clinton was used by her campaign to argue that the matter was closed not just legally but politically. However, others remained deeply disturbed by the press conference. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein cited the press conference in his letter calling for Trump to fire Comey. Rosenstein said that Comey’s references to Clinton were “derogatory” and “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

In comparison, Comey’s letter on Oct. 28, 2016 was far less problematic. Congress was actively investigating the email scandal and has coordinated congressional investigations with the Justice Department. Congress asked Comey (and he had agreed) to let the committees know if the status of the investigation changed. Moreover, Comey had previously testified that the investigation was closed. Accordingly, he wrote to inform Congress of the status change while stating that there has been no determination on the significance of the new information or whether it would change the prior conclusions. It did not. On Nov. 6, 2016, the FBI declared that the new information did not alter its earlier conclusions in closing the investigation.

It is important to note that, if the October information was a “shiv,” it was a shiv that Clinton and her staff effectively made themselves. The October letter was triggered by undisclosed files that were found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, the husband of close Clinton aide Huma Abedin and was under investigation as a sex offender. The late discovery was the byproduct to the reckless handling of the emails and the failure of the Clinton team to collect and turn over such evidence. While professing cooperation with federal authorities, Clinton and her staff were slow to appear for interviews and turning over evidence.

They refused to be interviewed by State Department investigators trying to determine if there was a national security breach. They then delayed handing over key computers and information until they were given immunity deals from the FBI. Had the Clintons and their staff been truly transparent and cooperative from the outset, all of this information would have been known to the FBI and the matter likely put to rest before the July press conference. Instead, in a signature Clinton strategy, they were too clever by half.

They ended up prolonging the scandal through changing accounts and withholding information. In my view, Comey would have been better to hold back from sending that letter given the close election date. However, it is really the July press conference that is the focus of those looking at Comey’s possible misconduct as director. There likely would have been little need for the October letter if Comey had not held the earlier press conference and made his ill-advised public statements.

In the end, Comey both helped and hurt Clinton. The letter was unlikely a serious game changer in the election. The problem is that the polls show that many voters were put off by Clinton herself and not her emails. Describing Comey’s status letter as a “shiv” does little to improve Clinton’s position. All of the colorful rhetoric in the world will not retroactively create a plausible reason for Clinton losing the election, other than herself. Worse yet, most voters have long lost interest in the past or current problems facing Clinton. As explained by Red in “Orange Is The New Black,” “All problems are boring until they’re your own.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

185 thoughts on “Orange is the New Black: Clinton Complained Of Being “Shivved” By Comey”

  1. As far as I’m concerned, she is an evil person (not in the great malefic sense, but the more classical definition). Trump may be a blowhard and a corporate shill, but I don’t get that sense of legitimate malice and malevolence from him. The DNC and their cohort has had a long range plan to control everything and everyone at the expense of personal freedom for a couple of decades now, and I can’t get behind that (and never have!). She was indeed unelectable, and nothing short of succumbing to her health (though I wish no ill on her) will ger her to drop the mic. She espouses victimhood and seeks to enculturate generations with it as a strategy like no one I’ve ever seen. It is disgusting to me. She is cursing her self-made darkness, not turning on a light.

    1. One thing Trump is not and never has been is a shill. The closest thing to a shill in modern Presidential politics was Walter Mondale (who is actually a decent fellow in most respects). You could make a case that the term applies to Marco Rubio and to the Bushes, father and son.

      I have trouble figuring out what makes Trump tick and he does have unappealing surface features.

  2. I worked @ Leavenworth Penitentiary and Hillary sounds just like inmates blaming everyone but themselves. She should be an inmate.

  3. I’m betting Natacha’s voice causes the people around her to wince.

    1. I’m betting that Natacha bears an uncanny resemblance to the actress Lisa Edelstein. Most men probably wouldn’t even hear Natacha’s voice under that circumstance.

      1. I’m not. Lisa Edelstein, at age 51, looks great and has a presentable (not beautiful) voice (though I suspect she’s worked to shave off its New Jersey particulars). If she’s had cosmetic work done or colors her hair, it’s difficult to discern. She’s had screen credits every year since 1991. She’s had two or three years of low activity, but managed to earn a living at it since about 1995. The one unfortunate thing about her is that she married quite late in life and has no children.

    1. She also claps on beats one and three instead of beats two and four. As though every song were either a polka or a reggae tune. It’s embarrassing.

      1. T rump’s voice ain’t no treat. He squawks and screams like a mad Jackolantern. Cover your ears and eyes.

  4. A rather poor choice of words, possibly even a Freudian slip, given that “shiv” describes an attack in prison.

    1. Vince Jankoski – I also thought it was an odd choice of word from the smartest woman in the world, however, I put it down to binging Orange is the New Black, which is basically soft-core lesbian porn. What is she going to do since she broke her toe? I wonder who was responsible for that?

  5. Well it’s almost the end of October & Robert Mueller is suppose to produce a detailed expense report for the special counsel financial operations billing to tax payers.

    1. Oh Gosh that’s like slow driving past a auto accident. LOL! Just a note here, I work and have worked in male dominated industries most of my life. it’s a very rare occasion that I’ve experienced chauvinist, sexist and misogynist. I can count only three cases in 20 years. Maybe she’s just unlikable, ya think?

      1. There are women who like the company of men and there are women who like the attention of men but not really their company. The former will navigate predominantly male environments satisfactorily, the latter will be dissatisfied. It’s best to find your niche and appreciate those around you best you can and not expect them to twist themselves into pretzels to please you.

        1. I do not judge based on race, gender, nationality or orientation. I changed jobs only to fit the changes in my life. I’ve been the only woman and sometimes the only white person on the job. If the work pleases me and the people are very fine, I can’t be bothered with -isms. I feel fortunate to get such a job.

          Being perpetually offended must be very exhausting.

      2. Same here, Marie. I actually can only think of one over my 40 year career.

  6. Sorry folks, but Turley isn’t going to touch the Obama-Clinton-Mueller Russian-Uranium Perfidy with a 190 foot pole, even if he could find one.

    Turley won’t and can’t cover real news because his career depends upon satisfying the Leftists who employ him. Also, Turley is a phony as a matter of principle. He loves to demonstrate his hypocrisy by calling for Sessions to recuse himself, but not calling for Mueller to recuse himself when the case is far STRONGER for Mueller to recuse himself.

    1. While there are a number of subjects upon which is clearly not afraid to go against the grain there is some merit to your criticism. There are clearly lines Turley will not cross. Being uniformly unpopular or adamantly attacked by those in D.C. is not on his agenda. He very carefully keeps a foot in both camps by not being too harsh or too critical too often concerning the D.C. nabob crowd. Of course, he does have to live and work with those people and at least he is amongst the few of the D.C. establishment with some degree of backbone. I don’t see much of that quality on the Hill.

      Really, Turley’s greatest failing may be his hands off attitude towards the legal profession. When even Obama gave lip service to the idea of reducing law school to two years Turley failed to criticise. Two years? It needs to be INCREASED to four years in order to pound some real ethics, legal history and Con Law into the heads of law students instead of adding to the trade school image. And the proliferation of lousy and even unrankable law schools turning out many thousands of J.D.’s every year is another subject Turley won’t touch. Better law schools, better training, a return to some level of elite intellectual training may give us better political leadership. At the very least they might be more interesting in their deviousness.

  7. Reblogged this on 1EarthUnited and commented:
    “Many believe that Clinton was the worst possible candidate and perhaps the only major figure that could have lost to Trump.”

    — Perhaps the only truism in politics!

    1. If anyone watched this video and still actively supports the Democratic Party and its rulers they are either fools, enablers, or beneficiaries of their corruption. How much more damage are they going to do to our national security and society before they are voted out of office?

    1. “WHAT will it take to lock her up????”

      I saw some of these yesterday and was thinking the same thing. Has it been in the MSM at all? I bet all the silly progs here were doing a collective Scooby Doo “huh?…” when this broke. I guess they are running around today to see what else will make the sky fall since HRC has documented dealings with real legal-trade issues. But I guess they will say Putin hacked her “Pokemon Go,” so in the end, she was just extorted… ???

  8. I sure as heck hope Trump and the GOP keep sending payments to HRC for her absolutely phenomenal help in insuring the continued slow and painful death of the DNC and opposition success.

    Trump and the GOP can not buy insurance like HRC has been supplying every day since the election. May God keep her healthy and on the stump for the GOP right till she dies and goes straight to hell, no collecting $200 @ “Go!”

    I mean, really…..who is the fiction author who came up with blaming “domineering boyfriends” and “self hating women?” What can go wrong attempting to convert your political enemies by calling them “weak, stupid, and masochistic!”


  9. Thanks, Professor Turley, for informing us for the umteenth time that Hillary was and is a no-goodnik. Not only that, but what about Bill and Monica? Don’t forget that disgraceful episode.

  10. Hillary shivved herself, she was the worst Presidential candidate since John McCain ran against Obama. She should have let Bill run her campaign, but she thought she knew better and she carried too much baggage, to begin with. I do find the buying of a million dollar plus estate for the SS ironic and I am not sure what they are going to do with it. Maybe instead of separate bedrooms, they will have separate homes.

    1. It suddenly occurs to me that HRC is ‘Dr. Janice Lester’ from the original Star Trek.

      1. TSFS – she’s the one that took over Kirk’s body. Whose body is HRC supposed to be taking over or who has taken over hers?

        1. Neither. Remember, the spirits returned to their original bodies naturally. The equipment on the planet had only temporary effects. Recall Lester’s ruthless obsession, which must have included devoted every moment of discretionary time to learning features of a Star Fleet captain’s job and manufacturing an incident on the planet which led to the deaths of eight members of her staff.

          1. TSFS – I saw it when it originally came on, have not seen it in re-runs. So, I am not up to date on the character. Actually, I only vaguely remember her and don’t remember the storyline at all.

            1. “…I saw it when it originally came on,…”

              Geez Paul, I didn’t think anyone was up to admitting on there they saw the original airings of Star Trek… People get on me for being old to remember the original airing of Next Generation…

              1. slohrss29 – I am a war baby. I have seen the originals of the Lil’ Rascals, Red Ryder, early John Wayne, etc. 🙂 We had Saturday matinees that most of the kids would go to. You would get a serial, cartoon, short comedy and feature cowboy film.

                1. The good ‘ol days. I guess back then entertainment was appreciated. Now it’s expected. Part of the bread & circuses mentality.

                  1. slohrss29 – back when gas was 25 cents a gallon and 4 people put in your car for you as they checked your tire pressure, oil gauge, etc. When there were real drive-ins that were family operated.

              2. People get on me for being old to remember the original airing of Next Generation…

                No, for being just old enough that your introduction to the Enterprise included Jean-Luc Martinet, the tedious woman in sick bay unaccountably infatuated with him, and her annoying son. The show’s finest characters were Dr. Pulaski (who lasted one season) and Data. Well, there was Troi and her mother.

      2. It will suddenly occur to TSFS that Bilge Clinton did not use the life-force transfer device to take possession of HRC’s body.

      3. “It suddenly occurs to me that HRC is ‘Dr. Janice Lester’ from the original Star Trek.”

        That’s it! Been trying to put that together for years!

    2. Paul, why do think Romney was a better candidate than McCain?

      Trump claims Romney choked.

      1. Diane – I do think Romney choked, but I think McCain was a horrible candidate. He never acted like he wanted to win.

        1. The circumstances made it impossible, and he could likely see that. In recent decades, it has been odd for an incumbent party to win a 3d turn at the wheel of the federal executive. You see failures in 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2008, and 2016. The only success was 1988, the result of the most fantastically effective fall campaign in the last 80 years. A week after the Republican convention adjourned, George Bush was expected to lose badly. And, of course, that success was followed by the bizarre 1992 election, where you had an adequate incumbent not able to garner more than 37% of the vote.

          The post-war headwind aside, you had the financial crisis erupting in September 2008. The public blamed the incumbent executive (which wasn’t fair), and that injured McCain. Then there’s the media, which were an auxilliary to the Obama campaign of a sort no other candidate has ever had.

      2. Romney had the sense to not hire shady careerists (Steven Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace) to run his campaign. Sarah Palin sussed out Nicolle Wallace right away and wanted nothing to do with her.

        Its actually amazing that McCain won the nomination that year. One change in the common culture of the GOP in the last decade been the dissipation of a certain constituency among GOP primary voters. In 1980, 1988, 2008, and 2012, the GOP nominated the most recent runner up (in a competitive contest). In 1996, the most recent runner up was Pat Buchanan, an oddball who’d challenged an incumbent, so they nominated the penultimate runner up. In 2000, they nominated the donors’ candidate (the son of the most recent Republican president). In 1976, 1984, 1992, and 2004, they nominated the incumbent. Gerald Ford, who had never run for office outside of Kent County, Michigan and had unaccountably decided in 1974-75 that the evaporating Rockefeller constituency was the one he had to placate, was the only one who faced a stiff challenge. Looking back, you can guess that about 1/3 of GOP primary voters cast their ballots each time for The-Guy-Who’s-Turn-It-Is, and that’s a decent riser on which a candidate could stand. I think that explains McCain’s win in 2008. In 2012, Romney seems to have won faux-de-mieux (like Richard Nixon in 1968).

      3. Diane, Romney was a decent guy that was smeared and just didn’t have the ability or desire to protect his image.

        McCain has never been an honest broker IMO. He was another lousy choice for the Presidency by the Republicans.

  11. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    ― Edmund Burke

    Lord, pray tell, when will the criminals be prosecuted?

    Why do the Dept of Justice and Congress ignore the mountain of evidence

    against Obama and the Clintons?

Comments are closed.