Donald Trump’s recent indictment on 37 criminal counts, ranging from willful retention of national defense information to conspiracy to obstruct justice, has, of course, led many Republicans to shout, “What about Hillary Clinton?!” How similar is Trump’s current predicament to Hillary’s email server? Not much, but I’ll get to that shortly.
Clinton Recap
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was a controversy that erupted when it was revealed that Clinton, as the U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, used a private email server for official communications instead of the government’s system. This raised questions about the security and transparency of her emails, as well as whether she complied with federal laws and regulations on recordkeeping and classified information.
The FBI conducted an investigation into Clinton’s email practices and found that she had been “extremely careless” in handling classified information but did not recommend any criminal charges against her. The FBI also found that none of the emails on her server were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. However, 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time, including 65 emails deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret.” Additionally, the State Department retroactively designated 2,093 emails as confidential.
Donald Trump called for her to be jailed, but the FBI decided not to recommend charges against Clinton. Their rationale was based on their assessment that there was no clear evidence of intentional mishandling of classified information or any intent to violate the law. The FBI also considered the fact that no previous Secretary of State from either party had been prosecuted for similar practices, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, although Rice and Powell used private email accounts more sparingly.
And let’s not forget other instances, such as Ivanka Trump, senior White House adviser and daughter of President Trump, who used a personal email account for government business, Reince Priebus, former White House chief of staff, who also used a personal email account for government business, and most concerning, Jared Kushner, senior White House adviser and son-in-law of President Trump, who used a personal email account and WhatsApp to communicate with foreign leaders, including Mohammed bin Salman.
Every example from Clinton to Kushner ranges from insignificant violations to quite shady in appearance, but in any case, they all pale in comparison to Trump’s violations in terms of scope, egregiousness, and risk to national security.
Trump’s Crime
Trump had a massive stash of highly confidential documents in physical form. According to the DOJ, “The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack,” states the indictment. “The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could jeopardize the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources, as well as the continued effectiveness of sensitive intelligence collection methods.”
Trump knowingly retained classified documents with vital national security information, had them moved throughout his residence and public areas of his resort, and repeatedly lied about their existence. Not only did he deny having the documents early on, but he also refused to return them when it was clear they were in his possession. As a last resort, the FBI executed a warrant on Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents. In 2016, James Comey addressed the four elements that he stated need to be present to prosecute someone under the Espionage Act:
- “Clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.”
- “Vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct.”
- “Indications of disloyalty to the United States.”
- “Efforts to obstruct justice.”
It seems obvious to everyone from the DOJ to conservative legal commentators like George Conway and Bill Barr that Trump clearly meets all four of the elements above, and I completely agree. As Bill Barr said in a recent interview, if Trump had simply given the documents back when asked, this would be a non-issue. Instead, Trump denied and lied.
What about Biden?
If we compare Trump’s overt criminal handling of documents to documents being found at Joe Biden’s home or even Mike Pence’s from their tenures as vice president, there is no public evidence to suggest that this was anything other than an accident that occurred when transitioning from an official residence back to a civilian one. To be fair, a special counsel is still investigating the circumstances surrounding the documents that Biden kept in his garage and office, and if there is evidence that Biden knew the documents he possessed were classified and purposely concealed them from the government, it will be a different story. However, I doubt any such evidence will emerge.
Most Republican voters likely think Trump is innocent or unfairly prosecuted for something Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden got away with. However, I’d bet that over 90% of his politician defenders do not believe a word they are spewing in his defense. They are experiencing firsthand the lasting consequences of making a deal with the devil. There’s an old saying in business, “You can’t make a good deal with a bad person”. As Liz Chaney so eloquently stated, “To my Republican colleagues who defend the indefensible: Donald Trump will eventually be gone, but your dishonor will endure.”
Don’t Call The Cops
Members of the Republican political and punditry class, who are not explicitly lying to defend Trump, are attempting a different tactic to shield him. They argue, “Sure, he may be guilty, but as a former president and current candidate, this should be a matter left to the voters, not law enforcement.” J.D. Vance recently stated, “This is a political issue, not a legal one.” This is a ridiculous and feeble attempt to show loyalty to Trump while maintaining plausible deniability if his base ever turns against him.
The political process has already played its role. Every statute that Trump is accused of violating was created by elected representatives of the people, and none of them included exemptions for former presidents. Let’s give Vance the benefit of the doubt and say it is indeed a political issue. Does Vance understand the functions of the different branches of government? The executive branch has a duty to enforce the country’s laws, and the justice department is obligated to fulfill its part in the political process.
While there are situations where the executive branch may exercise restraint, such as not raiding every marijuana dispensary in California because of its legalization at the state level, ignoring someone who blatantly disregards laws crucial to national security is not the time to turn a blind eye. Especially considering that Trump had multiple opportunities to return the material and resolve this matter without the need for criminal charges.
It’s worth noting that Vance refers to it as “Trump’s government,” as if he were a king immune to the rule of law. The government belongs to the people, not Trump. He was merely the temporary head of one branch. Furthermore, even if the laws didn’t apply to Trump during his time in office, he still violated the law as a private citizen after his presidency.
We All Know…
Lastly, among all the names in the paragraphs above, there is only one I could see revealing information of major national security concern for personal benefit, and that is Trump. We really don’t know for sure if Trump passed on any classified information purposely or accidentally. It’s not a stretch to say that maybe he sold it, and that layer of the onion just hasn’t been peeled yet. Time will tell, but the comparison of Trump to Clinton or Biden is a gross false equivalence because Trump defenders don’t have a legal, moral, or ethical leg to stand on.
Leave a Reply