Columns, Criminal law, Media, Politics

“The Clinton Standard”: How Hillary Clinton’s False Victimization Claims Reveal a Core Truth

Below is a longer version of my New York Post column on the recent claim of Hillary Clinton that she has been the subject to a long-standing and unfair “Clinton standard” while denying that there was any classified information found on her private server. In a signature move, Clinton is focusing on the actual classification of emails as opposed to the use of the unsecured server for communications with aides that revealed classified information — the reason why such unsecured servers are dangers to national security.

Here is the column:

“I can’t believe we’re still talking about this, but my emails. . .” The expression of utter incredulity was classic Clinton — she’s selling hats reading “But her emails” for $30 a pop. Hillary Clinton’s disbelief this week was shared by many critics left dumbfounded by her claim her private server contained “zero” classified documents.

But Hillary’s denial of what was found on her server exposes something far more serious than a simply false claim. It reflects establishment figures’ sense of license that they can literally rewrite history with little fear of contradiction by the media.

While calling for limits on free speech over “disinformation,” Hillary has no qualms about falsely denying what published government reports detail.

“As Trump’s problems continue to mount, the right is trying to make this about me again. There’s even a ‘Clinton Standard.’ The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified,” her but-my-emails tweet continued. “Comey admitted he was wrong after he claimed I had classified emails. Trump’s own State Department, under two different Secretaries, found I had no classified emails.”

Virtually everything about that claim is breathtakingly untrue.

Let’s quickly deal with the light lifting before getting back to the “Clinton Standard.”

“Zero emails” were “classified.”

A 2018 Department of Justice inspector general report revealed “81 email chains containing approximately 193 individual emails” were “classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time.” Clinton is echoing her allies’ recent spin that there were only three documents with classification markings among 33,000 emails. It is utter nonsense.

The lack of classification markings in the Clinton email scandal was due in part because these were emails. There is no classification automatically stamped on text being typed out and sent within minutes by aides. While attachments and some emails can have classification markings, the whole point of using secure servers is that emails are created in the moment with inevitable slips in referencing classified material.

Nevertheless, the emails had classified information, including top-secret information tied to “Special Access Programs.” Yet some allies emphasize the inspector general also noted that in some cases there was “conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material.” It failed. The emails still contained classified information.

That’s why she was reckless to use her own server: That does not mean that it warranted criminal charges or the mantra “lock her up.” Such mistakes on private servers are more vulnerable to capture by foreign intelligence services. Indeed, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information through the emails of Clinton’s associates and aides.

“Comey admitted he was wrong.”

It’s not entirely clear what Hillary is referencing here. But Comey never said there was no classified information in her emails — he said the opposite. He condemned her handling of the classified material while saying it didn’t warrant prosecution.

Comey did backtrack later, but not on this point. He said his “mistake” was in how he described her conduct: “I should’ve worked harder to find a way to convey that it’s more than just the ordinary mistake, but it’s not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that.”

However, she had “dozens of conversations on email about secret topics” and “I think eight about top-secret topics,” he added. “So if I’m gonna be honest, I have to say somehow it’s more than ordinary sloppiness.”

Hillary has previously referred to different accounts over the precise markings on three emails with actual classification markings. Comey did state later that the classification markings on marked emails were “confidential” rather than one marked “secret.” (Clinton claimed not to know what a “(C)” classification even meant on a document). However, once again, they dealt with marked emails not the disclosure of classified information in the course of communications on the unsecured private server.

“A Clinton Standard.”

Clinton objects that she’s held to a different standard. That’s true — but not for the reason she cites. She’s long been subject to her own standard in brushing off alleged criminal conduct. Indeed, her husband Bill Clinton, personifies a family immunity from such charges. A federal judge and even Democrats concluded that he committed perjury in his sworn statements but he was never charged. Some of those who have clamored for criminal charges against Trump and others for an array of crimes were adamant that Bill Clinton should not be impeached, let alone charged, for the federal crime.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly avoided criminal charges even as close associates were charged. Many believe she used insider information from a friend at Tyson Foods to reap a huge windfall on cattle futures in the 1970s. No charge. Then there was Whitewater. Bill Clinton later pardoned Susan McDougal, who went to jail in connection to the fraudulent land scheme that involved both Clintons. For Hillary, no charge.

Then there were the key long-sought Whitewater documents. After the case was effectively over, they suddenly appeared. The New York Times called the documents “elusive,”  as if they moved by free will. Investigators specifically sought those records, and Clinton’s team denied possession only for them to be found later outside her office. Sound familiar? No charge.

The Clinton Standard is most evident in the email scandal. Clinton’s staff unilaterally destroyed thousands of emails with BleachBit despite being aware in 2014 that Congress and the State Department were seeking the evidence. I know few clients who would have the temerity to order such a unilateral destruction. Her lawyers turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted 33,000 others, unilaterally deeming them “personal.”

For a surprisingly long period, Clinton and her staff did not fully cooperate with investigators in refusing to turn over her emails and other evidence to State and DOJ investigators, including laptops holding suspected classified information. That delayed efforts to estimate any national-security damage, but there was no raid.

The FBI cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation, and even then more classified material was found on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation. Again, no charges.

So Hillary inadvertently hit upon one demonstrably true statement. There is a Hillary Clinton Standard, and that’s not good for anything other than hat sales.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

182 thoughts on ““The Clinton Standard”: How Hillary Clinton’s False Victimization Claims Reveal a Core Truth”

  2. Whitewater:
    The Records “found” were the Rose billing records and they show up the day or so after the statute of limitations ran out.
    —
    Comey had himself inserted into the Whitwater prosecution team.
    “Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions:

    Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement.

    Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
    —
    sound familiar ? same damnation as the server crap and again without consequences.
    Comey was the Clinton’s cleanup man…I’m still looking for Sandy Berger’s polygraph test results…oh wait..

    A Pox on all their houses.

  4. John… NO MENTION of the highly suspect DNC IT AWAN Brothers / Debbie Wasserman Schultz allegations of a 13 year Pakastani Intelligence Operation inside HRC/DNC citing government records, House investigations, House staffers, A Marine that provided key evidence to the FBI (Fail Basic Imperatives) and the usual undisclosed / unnamed sources…. Or “compromised” Anthony Weiner walking around with his laptop for some reason reportedly chock-full of Confidential / TS/ ATS / SAP records? (BTW…Speaking of LAPTOPS…) — And those are the people we know about! – But we live in a country were an imbed deviant Swamper “National Security Advisor” can laugh off stating publicly without concern that he would ever be held accountable for war crimes & human rights abuses regarding his not-so-humble brag of his / our involvement in planning and pulling off Coup De Tat’s / (John Bolton-CNN). And follow-up with “ex”CIA / Pentagon Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash on MSNBC laughingly blow it off as “Hyperbole…Total BS… the United States doesn’t plan Coup De Tat’s”. Things speaks for itself? OR… Quod Est Necessarium Est Lictum “That which is necessary is legal” Sincerely, actual Pre-Snowden Nat Sec Whistleblower Military Industrial Surveillance Complex Mark J. Novitsky

  5. Hillary needs some slack….she was in a handful of senators who did not want your hippa “acknowledgement” to equate to “consent”. ….to be a human guinea pig just because bills ‘s commerce Secretary. Brought us hippa via an agreement with the then European commission. …..making us commodities to be studied…..by the wef. Ultimately. But I suspect then she was taking outrage….lol look at us now.

  6. While I have no problem with JT analyzing recent comments by Hillary regarding her emails or by discussing Hillary in the context of many establishment figures regarding accountability for their actions, this column/post by talking only about Hillary (and not other establishment figures) and by bringing up cattle futures, whitewater, and a side mention of perjury by Bill (not just Hillary emails) comes across to me as too personal and political.

    1. Turley likes to complain about “the age of rage,” but he regularly feeds it with his choice of topics + how he discusses them.

  7. But Hillary Clinton’s suggestion of a “Clinton Standard” caught the attention of Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote perhaps what is the definitive takedown of her latest “but my emails” defense and pointed out that there is indeed a “Clinton Standard,” but that it’s not the one she wants people to think it is:
    https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2022/09/08/prayers-for-jonathan-turley-after-his-definitive-takedown-of-hillarys-latest-but-my-emails-defense-n624506

    1. FROM OLLY’S RED STATE ARTICLE:

      “As for Turley, say a quick prayer for his safety because, well, I don’t think I have to explain why such things are necessary when it comes to criticisms of – and the wrongdoings of – the Clintons”.
      ……………………………….

      Olly, thank you for noting the grave danger Professor Turley could be in. He has literally risked his life in ‘taking down’ the Clinton’s.

      One imagines the Clinton’s are negotiating a contract at this moment to silence Johnathan Turley. And said contract will probably be funded by George Soros, that diabolical ___ (fill in the blank with your favorite anti-Semitic slur).

        1. No, Karen, but those criticizing are often so-called White Christian Nationalists.

          1. Those people criticizing Soros has little to do with their politics. It has to do with their knowledge of the man and his sociopathic actions. I assume he would get along nicely with other sociopaths.

          2. those repeating that lie use multiple sock puppets and have a flair for gay drama vis a vis their penchant for using multiple colors for avatars

            cmon, Peter, focus on finding a partner, composing goals and then executing them. Your trolling with the same tired shill pieces are even too histrionic for your standards. You’re beginning to act like an Alex Jones sans muscular hairy chest

            😉

            1. Nah, I think he’s just a homophobe. He’s also a self-proclaimed Catholic who fails to follow Christ’s teachings.

          4. Anonymous:

            What data do you have to support your statement that those who criticize George Soros are “often so-called White Christian Nationalists”?

            First, I thought you said they were antisemitic? Do you no longer think that?

            Second, the race or religion of someone criticizing Soros is immaterial. The criticism is either well-founded and supported, or not.

            Third, nationalism in and of itself is not negative. Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were nationalists. Evil can certainly be done in the name of a positive attribute. There are many people in prison who claimed to have killed out of love. Fascism created a powerful government at the expense of individual rights, for the “common good” as defined by that government. Fascism defined the common good as nationalism. However, it could just as easily have been world peace, the environment, or saving the whales. Having a positive motivation is no excuse for evil. An excellent fictional character who exemplifies this was Thanos of the Marvel Movies. Thanos was an eco terrorist. He destroyed half of all sentient lives to save the environment of the universe. That doesn’t make saving the environment an unworthy cause.

            I am white, Christian, and certainly patriotic, and I’ve criticized George Soros. I am neither anti-semitic nor racist. There are valid criticisms of George Soros’ policies that he uses his vast resources to push on others. For example, he has demonstrably donated significant money to defund the police movements. While Soros enjoys expensive private security, his efforts made the poor and middle class unsafe, as violent crime escalated in cities. Trying to portray this sincere criticism as anti-semitic appears to be an effort to prevent discussing the actual concerns, and instead demonize the critics. Since I find many woke, progressive policies to ultimately be disastrous to the very people purported to benefit, of course I take issue with one of the most major patrons of progressive, woke policies.

        2. Tell us, Karen S: what do you personally know about George Soros OTHER THAN what was spoon-fed to you by Fox media? Zilch.

          1. RE:”Tell us, Karen S: what do you personally know about George Soros OTHER THAN what was spoon-fed to you by Fox media? Zilch.” Hopefully, FOX’s audience will serve to neutralize the divisive swill issuing from the mouth of The President of the United State, the miscreants who control him, and set the pendulum swinging back the other way.

          2. Lets see George Soros was a Nazi collaborater. Self admitted see 60 minutes interview. Lets see he has promoted the killing and rapes of thousands of women by promoting the muslim invasion of Europe. He currently gets his prosectors to go soft on crime so more murders can occur. Not very nice of him. He wants an open society but lives in an all white neighborhood surrounded by walls.

      2. I do not beleive the Clinton’s takeout hits on people.

        But the actual history of unexplained coincidences – including deaths surrounding the Clinton’s is distrubing.

        Hillary Clinton has been at the start of just about every political scandal since Watergate.

      3. The Clinton’s never have to negotiate a contract. They just have the FBI take care of it through their “contacts” , just ask Seth Rich! Oh and Soros is not a Jew, he’s just another Atheist Prog who is diabolical.

    1. Good give her another crack against “the vast right wing conspiracy”….she wants her stAndard for another crack – but not against donald. Either way our conspiracy is vast. So bring it.

      1. RE:”Hilary said she wants another crack at Donald.’ It’s what one gets in an established politician whose hubris is great, whose Teflon is dense and who had never been truly brought low until 2016. She won the popular vote where she was popular. She lost the Electoral College where she was not. Yet she refuses to concede. She maintains that the fault is not in her stars, nor in herself. It is in the ‘basket of deplorables’ that she is an underling. She happens to be correct.

        1. She maintains that the fault is not in her stars, nor in herself.

          she is like most Americans, sadly. No mea culpa within them

Comments are closed.