You will remember the issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
She used a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.
You may also be one of those who formed the impression that a later statement by the director of the FBI on the issue led to Clinton losing the presidential election to Donald Trump.
You may also recall the chants of “lock her up” by Trump supporters in response to mentions of this email issue.
*
Those in executive office, it would seem, should be careful about how they store information – else they could be breaching federal law.
Framed in those general terms, this description of what Clinton did wrong can cover what appears to be what Trump may have done wrong.
For today there was a search at Trump’s Florida residence by the FBI.
And the search was not for emails, but for classified documents, wrongly taken from the Whitehouse.
Hard copy equivalents of the electronic documents of Clinton.
But instead of clapping and cheering, as they did with FBI announcements about Clinton, Trump supporters are against this development.
So here was Trump-supporting Congressman Kevin McCarthy on Clinton’s emails:
On #ClintonEmails, the American people have a right to know the truth & Sec. Clinton has the ability to clear this up http://t.co/QLvkn2YVXT
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) March 22, 2015
My statement on the FBI reviewing new evidence in Clinton email probe: pic.twitter.com/rpxWJlgzCx
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) October 28, 2016
And here is the very same politician on the search at Trump’s property:
Attorney General Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar. pic.twitter.com/dStAjnwbAT
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) August 9, 2022
There is no intellectually honest way that these two stances can be reconciled.
The only explanation for the two stances is hyper-partisanship.
And like many hyper-partisans, he has invoked constitutional arguments of first principle when it suits his cause, but does not apply them the same way against his cause.
It is this hyper-partisanship which is worrying.
Either the FBI should be free to look at Clinton’s emails or Trump’s boxes or they should not.
But to say one is good and the other bad signifies a partisanship that picks and chooses which basic principles should be complied with.
And as this blog has said before, constitutionalism is the notion that there are certain fundamental rules and principles that should govern political behaviour regardless of personal or partisan advantage.
The FBI should be left to get on with their investigation and to follow where the evidence takes them, without fear or favour.
McCarthy is right that there is an intolerable state of weaponised politicisation.
But it is coming from Trump supporters, and it does not bode well.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
Is there an equivalent hyper-partisanship on the other side of the aisle? What were Democrats saying about the FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails in 2015, and what are they saying now?
We know Clinton had classified emails on her private email server, in breach of federal law. The FBI investigated at length, and eventually took no further action.
We know Trump destroyed documents while he was president that should have been preserved, and we know he took classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, both in breach of federal law. He has already returned some documents from Mar-a-Lago, but he may have more documents that should not be there.
As you say, the FBI should be left to get on with their job. Again.
As I recall, the partisan objection to the second episode of Clinton’s Emails was more about the head of the FBI, James Comey, making a public announcement about it just before an election.
FBI investigations into wrongdoing by a government officer are common. The FBI chief making a public announcement of an investigation is unusual.
Indeed – some days before the election, Comey informed Congress there was a renewed investigation, and then a few days later announced it was concluded with no further action. Comey was criticised for his actions in a report by the DoJ’s Inspector General a couple of years later.
But what were Democrat politicians saying in October 2016? Did they claim evidence may have been planted, or fulminate about a “witch hunt” or “fake news”? Or did they say the process should be allowed to run its course?
Presidents have different rights that a Sec. of State. Trump has the right to declassify as president, which he did. Clinton did not have that right–and she downright destroyed her paperwork background. She should be in jail despite all your efforts to protect her.
I listened to PM BBC R4 programme today which considered this issue. Interesting that I heard the interviewer give a Republicans Abroad representative a good crack of the whip on the issue. I didn’t hear any reposte or response from a Democrat or someone with your views the issue.
…your views on this issue
Arguably, divorced from reality rather than hyper-partisanship. No one in their right mind would approve a search warrant in this situation without being certain of the outcome. A warrant like this would have to be approved by a Federal Judge, the head of the FBI and (presumably) the head of the DoJ. The first two people were (it seems) appointed by Mr Trump. So the idea that this is somehow partisan (as distinct from what someone claims it is) has no basis in fact. (I infer this warrant is related to Mr Trump’s retention, contrary to Federal law, of certain executive branch papers.)
It is fair to say that we have never before seen partisanship with the extremity or vitriol on display in the United States at the moment. But it’s also worth taking a moment to consider how it evolved into the form we see today.
There has always been partisanship in politics; in a sense these two things are inextricably linked.
But with the arrival of Donald Trump in to the crowded field of Republican hopefuls, something new emerged. Trump took partisanship to the extreme; he is a gutter brawler, not a politician, so he conducts himself in this way. We were told about the off-mic comment he made to a journalist who asked him why he addressed the media as “Fake News!” and were told that he did this so that when the press printed something critical of him, he could deride it as “fake news” and his faithful would believe him.
And there was the clue.
Donald Trump attacks viciously **because he wants to provoke a vicious response**. He knows that he fights dirtier than anyone else because he has no moral compass. But also, he knows that his ability to control the conversation gives him the edge over anyone who wants to discuss policy or content or complex issues.
Trump uses the response he generates as a shield. “See how they attack me!? Those nasty, do-nothing Democrats, Shifty Schiff and Nasty Nancy have all got it in for me…”
At that point it doesn’t matter that the Democrats are trying to point out the bare-faced breaches of the emoluments clause, or the disclosure of information to Russians *in the Oval Office*, or the payments to a porn star and a topless model. By provoking his opponents, Trump goads them to play right in to his hands. He knows that all his base sees are Democrats attacking their President. He knows they don’t care about the fact that his businesses were charging the Secret Service outrageous rates to stay on site. He knows they don’t care about the fact that he was soliciting bribes from foreign states by encouraging them to stay at his D.C. hotel if they wanted an audience.
All of which is a lengthy and meandering way of saying that the boxes of documents at Mar-A-Lago are a sideshow to the wealth of more serious crimes he committed whilst in office.
The worrying thing is not that he did it, or that he seemed to find it relatively easy. The worrying thing is that having been given multiple opportunities to rid themselves of Trump, the Republicans seem intent on remaining enthralled. Even worse, they seem to be coaching the next generation – the Ron De Santis and his ilk, Marjorie Taylor-Green and their friends. All of who have watched and learned and are ready to do more of the same.
Brace, brace indeed.
I think “hyper-partisanship” isn’t the correct term to describe the behaviour. I’d go for the long-winded phrase “do whatever it takes to keep our mitts on what we want”.
It seems to me that Putin, Trump and Johnson have been working from the same political hymn sheet. Are they connected or do they just think alike?
You are so right. I am not old enough to remember the introduction of Apartheid in South Africa, but I find myself watching the Republican Party in the US: their divisiveness, their inexplicable support of assault weapons, the deliberate provocations… and I can’t help but wonder if there is a desire [perhaps plan is too strong a claim] to implement some form of [possibly informal] segregation in the society – “Have’s” and “Have Not’s”.
Even more worryingly, I find myself reminded of the observation by George Orwell, in “Animal Farm”. After the initial take-over, one of the pigs puts a sign on the grass outside the farmer’s house that reads, “All animals are equal”. Later on, after the pigs have moved in and started to wear the farmer’s fine clothes and to smoke his tobacco, the sign is changed to, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. I see shades of that already happening in the US today (things like tax concessions that are only applicable to billionaires or the ultra-wealthy).
Then I think: hang on… don’t we have the same thing here?
We do, of course. We’ve just had more practice at hiding it.
I can’t help but be reminded of Partygate and Beergate (or Currygate or whatever we called it) albeit ona different scale.
In the same vein as “I am steadfast; you are stubborn”, it feels a tale as old as time.
I’m not sure that Nadine Dorries’ outburst about the Privileges Committee may fall into the same camp – based on a world view that is simply her own view. (I’d be interested in DAG’s views on ministers undermining committees – this feels way beyond the cut and thrust of politics.)
The irregular verbs goes:
I am steadfast
You are stubborn
He/she/it is pig-headed
It looks to me as if it is Dodgy Don versus Crooked Hilary and Global Britain is going to have to pick its side.
Needless to say neither Truss nor Sunak will want to touch this issue with a barge pole this month.
Very interesting observation…
The weird thing is, however, that the “special relationship” that crosses the Atlantic appears to be intentionally apolitical in nature. Yes, there were the mutual adoration societies formed from Thatcher-Reagan, But Obama worked with both parties and cared more about the UK remaining in the EU (and thereby wielding proxy influence for Washington) than he did about who lived above No. 10…
Well, you say that and, in a sense, you are right.
The same law should apply to Hilary Clinton as does to Donald Trump. The difference, of course, is that Hilary Clinton was not President of the United States.
Searching a server is also a rather different thing from raiding Mar a Lago.
Deleting files from a server is a different from removing physical evidence from a building that is under surveillance.
So, yes the same law should apply. But, the consequences might not be the same.
There is one interesting difference between the Clinton and Trump cases which involves the change in penalty for violating the relevant law.
18 U.S. Code §1924. It originally read:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
On Jan. 18, 2018, Trump’s signing S. 139 into law had a stipulation editing 18 U.S. Code §1924. and that became: “ … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.” And with that, it became a felony.