Why Hillary Clinton is like Richard Nixon

Why Hillary Clinton is like Richard Nixon

An indictment for violations of the Espionage Act and for public corruption looms. On the evidence made public so far, a failure to indict would be an obstruction of justice. We rightfully should expect Hillary Clinton to be indicted and tried for her Espionage Act violations and for any instance of public corruption in which she gave political favors to individuals in exchange for contributions to the Clinton Foundation. As was said of Richard Nixon so too we may say of Hillary Clinton: No one who serves in the government of the United States is above the law; each must be made to account under the same laws that govern the rest of us. For far lesser violations of the Espionage Act, General David Petraeus was required to answer for his offense. Hillary Clinton cannot escape justice for her more numerous and consequential offenses.

Given the pace of the FBI/DOJ investigation, Hillary may not be indicted until after she becomes the nominee of her party, but every effort should now be made to keep the pressure on DOJ to ensure that Hillary is made to account for her law violations. Among the many knock-out blows capable of being landed against the Democratic frontrunner, none would be so devastating as an indictment from a Grand Jury.

Donald Trump and those who have endorsed him should encourage the public to demand justice and make clear that the eye of the public is keenly upon all those now evaluating whether to seek an indictment. Many others of lesser rank and position whose crime it was to have mishandled classified information were compelled to answer and to serve in prison. Hillary is not above the law, and she too should account for her violations of the Espionage Act.

The argument that no American, regardless of their political station, should escape justice when he or she has committed a crime is a theme that will resonate well with the electorate, Republicans and many Democrats alike. Indeed, it is astounding that Hillary and Bill Clinton have so cavalierly dismissed the idea that Hillary ought to account for her legal transgressions, particularly in light of the fact that Hillary referred lower level employees for FBI investigation who engaged in the mishandling of classified information.

The creation of a private server to receive all of her State Department correspondence together with a brazen refusal to abide by the security strictures required by federal law for the handling of classified documents reveals that Hillary Clinton did indeed regard the law as applicable to others but not to her. She knowingly and arrogantly refused to be bound by laws designed to guard American secrets, including highly classified intelligence on intelligence operations and operatives.

The view that Hillary is above the law, which she and Bill appear to favor, is precisely the view rejected by our Founding Fathers. As Richard Nixon discovered, no public official bound to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States can violate those laws without being made to account for the transgressions; otherwise, the President assumes the mantle of an emperor who dispenses law but is not obliged to abide by it. That notion was rejected at the founding and the principle that no American may violate the law with impunity, regardless of his or her station, was reaffirmed conclusively during the Watergate crisis.

Hillary Clinton remains unfit to serve as President of the United States because she violated the basic laws designed to protect the nation’s secrets. While her derelictions of duty are many and her achievements non-existent, her decision to send and receive outside of secure channels hundreds of emails that contained secret information was a crime. While negligent officials populate all branches of the federal government, negligent officials who go beyond dereliction of duty to violation of the law are a small subset who cannot be allowed to escape justice. To ensure the primacy of the rule of law over the rule of people in power, at a minimum those individuals who violate the law must be made to account in the courts. Hillary is just such a person, as was Richard Nixon.

© 2016 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved

print
Share this article

Click Here For Mass Emailing
Jonathan Emord

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). E-Mail: jemord@emord.com Website: Emord.com


Author Email: jemord@emord.com