WHY SCANDAL PLAGUES CLINTON BUT NOT OBAMA
The email scandal generated by Hillary Clinton’s cavalier handling of classified information is not likely to go away any time soon. Worse for her, she lacks the affability, self-deprecation, and apologetic nature needed to assuage the deservedly harsh criticism for her mishandling of the nation’s secrets. Her recent attempt at humor at the Iowa State Fair fell flat, revealing her too wooden, lacking in spontaneity, and lacking an essential sense of responsibility for serious misgivings. “You may have seen I recently launched a Snapchat account,” she said in a rehearsed yet poorly delivered line. “I love it,” she said. “Those messages disappear all by themselves . . .” The statement in and of itself is not comical but it is revealing. She appears unwilling to accept legal responsibility for wrong doing. She seems to view the issue of her handling of state secrets in a flip manner.
Hillary’s nature is wooden, so it is hard for her to appear heart felt about anything. She is not comfortable in her own skin, yet she is arrogant and condescends. She refuses to admit personal error, but she is quick to find fault in others. Outside of her immediate family, those who know her well really do not care for her very much. She likes to command, but she lacks the natural ability to inspire, to lead.
But why is it that Hillary Clinton is politically imploding in the face of the ongoing email scandal, while others, like President Obama, survive scandal after scandal largely unscathed? Indeed, how is it that the Obama Administration can refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas, refuse to turn over IRS emails germane to the unlawful IRS targeting of conservative groups, refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents concerning the DOJ fast and furious scandal, and refuse to turn over state department documents related to the Benghazi terror cover-up, all without suffering prosecution for wrong doing (or even public disapprobation)?
It appears that the fear of being brandished a racist for going after Obama stymies attempts at making him account. I have been told several times by different congressional staffers that no one in Congress is willing to proceed with impeachment proceedings against Obama, or against Attorney General Eric Holder before his resignation, because of the fear that they would be brandished racists for doing so. It is indeed a sad day in America when the color of one’s skin determines the nature of justice received. In the days of Jim Crow, it was reprehensible for blacks to be railroaded through to conviction, time and again, or to a lynching even before a conviction. Today, at least for this Administration, it is likewise reprehensible for race consciousness to block commencement of investigations and prosecutions against those who violate the law within the Obama Administration.
But the race consciousness that leads members of Congress to fear making Obama Administration officials account for their transgressions has little effect, thus far demonstrated, in preventing Hillary from being brought before the bar of justice. Indeed, the present Attorney General has a reputation for prosecuting law violators, regardless of race or gender. It will be interesting to see if she does so in this case, against a former Obama Administration official.
It may be that President Obama will not stand in the way of moves to prosecute Hillary for mishandling state secrets. The distrust and resentment between Obama and the Clintons was not abated by Hillary’s service in his administration. Indeed, the decision to allow her service came begrudgingly, deemed an astute political move that would unify the party following the bitter primary contests between Hillary and Obama. In many respects, Hillary Clinton remained a White House outsider while serving as Secretary of State, intentionally kept out of the loop on many key decisions affecting foreign policy.
Although the legal response to the email scandal has yet to play out, it appears that the matter is under serious investigation by the FBI, DOJ, and the State Department. The problem that poses for Hillary may be insurmountable in the general election. That is because it is two-fold in nature. In the first instance, many will not vote for Hillary if she is under suspicion of criminal wrong doing arising from negligent treatment of state secrets, fewer still if she is actually indicted and prosecuted. In the second instance, Hillary is alienating many Democrats who are appalled by her handling of the matter. She not only is on record as lying repeatedly on the question of whether her personal server contained state secrets, she is also visibly uncomfortable and close mouthed about the details which adds to suspicions and makes her look guilty of wrong doing. Her prevarication and awkward withholding of information further reduces the perception of her trustworthiness and leads many formerly loyal Democrats to look elsewhere.
In other words, she is her own worst enemy. Although she tries to blame a right wing conspiracy for her need to account, that old Hillary saw clearly does not apply to a situation that is entirely self-generated. Were it not for her own mishandling of state secrets and use of an unauthorized personal server, she would not be in this predicament. The predicament, however, speaks volumes about her.
No doubt apprised of the critical need to follow protocol to ensure that state secrets were not mishandled and rendered vulnerable to a foreign hack attack, Hillary Clinton arrogantly refused to follow that protocol. While others at the state department and in the government generally were legally bound to abide by the protocol (indeed, General David Patraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information and marines have also been prosecuted for comparable failings), Hillary viewed herself as above the law, as unanswerable for her mishandling of classified information. Indeed, based on her poor attempt at humor at the Iowa State Fair, she still regards herself as beyond reproach for lying to the American people and for mishandling state secrets.
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
In other words, she is her own worst enemy. Although she tries to blame a right wing conspiracy for her need to account, that old Hillary saw clearly does not apply to a situation that is entirely self-generated.