Hoist with Her Own Petard

 

ClintonBy recommending that Hillary Clinton not face trial for keeping classified documents on a private email server, FBI Director James Comey may have done the impossible: Ending the way the Clintons have done business for the past thirty years and — thus far — gotten away with it.

If the past is any guideline, Clinton’s trial would have lasted decades, with her (and her husband) doing their level best to avoid cooperating with the prosecution, dragging out the process long past its expiration date in the public’s mind. From Whitewater, to Lewinsky, to Benghazi, to the Clinton Foundation, to this, the Clintons’ modus operandi has always been to delay the pre-trial process for as long as possible in order to make the dogged determination for justice look like a partisan witch hunt.

But not yesterday. Yesterday, Director Comey made it very clear: Hillary Clinton was guilty, but she was not going to have her day in court. With his statement, the FBI director did more damage to Hillary than Ken Starr ever did to Bill, who was acquitted of perjury and obstruction of justice by the Senate, allowing him to portray his prosecution as partisan-based, giving him a platform from which to rebuild his reputation.

Hillary will have no such luck. For her, the narrative is set, and that narrative is not working in her favor. At best, she’s careless with government secrets; at worst, she broke the law but will not be charged because of her access to power. Donald Trump may have come up with the phrase “Crooked Hillary,” but it’ll be James Comey who makes it stick.

The FBI director has done to Hillary Clinton what she has done for so long: namely, dragging out the process of determining guilt or innocence over months (and months, and months) with no ultimate resolution. By using a punishment that is outside the legal process, the FBI Director has shown us the way to end Hillary’s outside-the-legal-system antics, once and for all.

Published in Elections, Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 53 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Kevin Creighton: Yesterday, Director Comey made it very clear: Hillary Clinton was guilty, but she was not going to have her day in court.

    Well said. Poetic.

    Director Comey failed to serve justice in a legal sense, but certainly delivered political justice in a most effective and expeditious manner.

    • #31
  2. Bob Laing Member
    Bob Laing
    @

    Severely Ltd.:

    Bob Laing:

    […]

    Rick B.:

    […]I think Trump will probably do this better than other potential nominees would. I have already heard clips interspersing Hillary saying she never sent emails marked as classified with Comey saying that she did; including the number.

    You make it sound like any other candidate wouldn’t do the exact same thing.

    Yeah, remember how Romney stood up to the MSM and Obama after Candy Crowley ran to Obama’s defense in the debate. Remember the ad he ran showing Crowley admit the next day that Obama hadn’t called Benghazi a terror attack after all?

    Or after the economic implosion, the ads McCain ran showing footage of Democrats defending the out-of-control, unsecured, Fanny/Freddie home loans that Republicans were appalled by? The stuff was available on Youtube.

    Oh, yeah, we’ve got some real fighters on our side.

    McCain:  Running after 8 years of an unpopular President from the candidate’s party in the midst of a financial crisis.

    Romney: Running against a reasonably popular incumbent.

    Both of these circumstances will typically end in a loss.

    But I guess both lost because they didn’t fight hard enough. Ok fine.  Trump is running after 8 years with the other party in power and a historically unpopular opponent.  Trump should be wiping the floor with her rather than trailing by 5 points and getting smoked in swing states. When exactly do we get to see the payoff?

    • #32
  3. Severely Ltd. Inactive
    Severely Ltd.
    @SeverelyLtd

    Bob Laing: When exactly do we get to see the payoff?

    I dunno, I was just addressing this silliness:

    Bob Laing: You make it sound like any other candidate wouldn’t do the exact same thing.

    • #33
  4. Bob Laing Member
    Bob Laing
    @

    Severely Ltd.:

    Bob Laing: When exactly do we get to see the payoff?

    I dunno, I was just addressing this silliness:

    Bob Laing: You make it sound like any other candidate wouldn’t do the exact same thing.

    Not very well.

    • #34
  5. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Bob W: How would it have been worse if Comey had said the same things up until the end, namely, she’s guilty of this and that, and therefore we DO recommend prosecution?

    How about “… and with this, we leave it to the DOJ to decide if they want to prosecute. We make no recommendation one way or the other.”

    He wins, she loses and the administration has a problem to boot.

    • #35
  6. A42NT1 Member
    A42NT1
    @

    Here’s a question… the FBI’s recommendation was not to prosecute, which the AG will follow. In the (unlikely) event of a Trump presidency, could he not then instruct his AG, on the weight of the facts in evidence, to go ahead and prosecute Hilary?  The way I understand the case so far is that no charges = no double jeopardy attaching.

    If Trump happens to win, watch for a pre-emptive Obama pardon.

    • #36
  7. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    I’m not sure that it’s accurate to say that Bill Clinton was “acquitted of perjury and obstruction of justice by the Senate”.

    Those are criminal charges, and the Senate is not a criminal court.  It is a subtle difference, but in reality, he was acquitted of two articles of impeachment – one involving perjury and one involving obstruction of justice.

    In addition, the “jury” – the Senate – does not vote on the removal of the president from office in the same way that a criminal jury votes for a criminal conviction.  Here is Sen. Susan Collins discussing her vote for acquittal:

    In voting to acquit the President, I do so with grave misgivings for I do not mean in any way to exonerate this man.  He lied under oath [i.e., committed perjury].  He sought to interfere with the evidence; he tried to influence the testimony of key witnesses [i.e., committed obstruction of justice].

    • #37
  8. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Pugshot: It’s times like this I wish I was a drinking man.

    Trust me, it doesn’t help.

    • #38
  9. nyconservative Member
    nyconservative
    @nyconservative

    My 2 cents…..first,if the country elects a woman so eviscerated by the FBI and one with a 25 year history of blatant lying,corruption and reckless behavior then sadly there is not a whole lot I can say other than the country has changed and not for the better

    second,if the GOP cannot take the gift Comey gave them on terms of commercials and talking points and beat this incompetent venal woman then they do not deserve to win

    • #39
  10. Pseudodionysius Inactive
    Pseudodionysius
    @Pseudodionysius

    If the email doesn’t fit you must acquit.

    • #40
  11. Carol Member
    Carol
    @

    Franz Drumlin: She is either a criminal who, because of her connections, got away with a felony or, at the very least, an incompetent unfit for office.

    Don’t sell her short! She can be both!

    • #41
  12. Rick B. Member
    Rick B.
    @

    Bob Laing:

    Severely Ltd.:

    Bob Laing: When exactly do we get to see the payoff?

    I dunno, I was just addressing this silliness:

    Bob Laing: You make it sound like any other candidate wouldn’t do the exact same thing.

    Not very well.

    The point is not that Trump is a great candidate overall (at least not my point).  This is the one area that I think he is better than the last two we had running.  Personally, I am on the ProbablyNotTrump side.

    • #42
  13. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    If Trump had any sense, he could use this to crucify her (which he flubbed completely yesterday, spending time, of all things, on Saddam). Stating the facts calmly and often, he could figuratively frog march her off the stage into political oblivion, with many who are on the fence coming to his side.

    But someone has to get into his head and convince him to act presidential doing this – perhaps even with a touch of humor.  It seems that no one has been able to get through to him as he continues to preach to his devout followers.  Someone has got to convince him to speak to a much broader audience.

    • #43
  14. Owen Petard Inactive
    Owen Petard
    @OwenPetard

    I’m certainly not her Owen Petard and I’m not about to….Oh, wait. I see.

    • #44
  15. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Owen Petard:I’m certainly not her Owen Petard and I’m not about to….Oh, wait. I see.

    I guess you had to go for it.

    • #45
  16. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Bob Laing:I can appreciate the need to rationalize this, but no matter how harsh Comey’s statement may have been, it falls far short of the right and just outcome. Expecting the American populace to parse his statement beyond “no charges recommended” is, sadly, a bridge too far.

    I’m afraid this is true. Comey’s statement was damning, but how many potential voters heard it? How many heard the MSM’s reporting instead? How many heard neither? We will just have to be satisfied with the litany of her failings. (I’m afraid by the end of her administration I’ll be on a street corner muttering “extremely careless” as I dig through trash cans.)

    • #46
  17. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    barbara lydick: If Trump had any sense, he could use this to crucify her

    Bad choice of wording.

    • #47
  18. Owen Petard Inactive
    Owen Petard
    @OwenPetard

    Suspira:

    Bob Laing:I can appreciate the need to rationalize this, but no matter how harsh Comey’s statement may have been, it falls far short of the right and just outcome. Expecting the American populace to parse his statement beyond “no charges recommended” is, sadly, a bridge too far.

    I’m afraid this is true. Comey’s statement was damning, but how many potential voters heard it? How many heard the MSM’s reporting instead? How many heard neither? We will just have to be satisfied with the litany of her failings. (I’m afraid by the end of her administration I’ll be on a street corner muttering “extremely careless” as I dig through trash cans.)

    That’s the problem. The only thing most people will hear is “no charges recommended.” Nothing Comey said changes anything whether you support Clinton or Trump or none of the above. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    • #48
  19. Keith SF Inactive
    Keith SF
    @KeithSF

    Comey has managed to become completely despised by everyone across the political spectrum, left and right. It’s a pretty impressive feat. He may be one of the most hated men in America at the moment.

    This article encapsulates the sentiment I’m seeing from much of the left:

    James Comey’s Abuse of Power

    In it, former Justice Department public affairs director Matthew Miller rages at Comey having overstepped his authority: “editorializing”, “lobbing accusations”, “making unprecedented assertions.”

    To us, it looks like Comey folded, but–even now–liberals are still looking at this as an ongoing witch hunt and screaming “foul!!”

    Kevin, thanks for this post– I think you’re on to something, and I think the left suspects it, too.

    • #49
  20. Calvin Dodge Member
    Calvin Dodge
    @CalvinDodge

    Oh, please – this won’t end Hillary’s adventures outside the legal system.  She’s gotten away with criminal behavior again and again, and if she’s elected President there’s no reason to believe she will suddenly say “gosh, some people will think badly of me if I keep breaking the law”.

    • #50
  21. Brian Skinn Inactive
    Brian Skinn
    @BrianSkinn

    Bob W: How would it have been worse if Comey had said the same things up until the end, namely, she’s guilty of this and that, and therefore we DO recommend prosecution?

    Because then Hillary would be able to play the victim card; to spin and wheedle in a formal court proceeding; and, when she was inevitably not convicted by the drawn-out legal proceedings (because, really: Clinton), she would be able to shout “I was acquitted!”

    Comey’s decision changes nothing for dedicated partisans on either side, but it gives Hillary a much-curtailed range of options for effectively protesting her innocence to swing voters.

    • #51
  22. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    A thought occurs, at the very outer extent of possibilities in this mess:

    IIRC, there remains an ongoing investigation into corruption regarding foreign donations to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation tied to subsequent policy and actions taken by Clinton’s State Department. Perhaps Comey wanted to clear away the email underbrush in order to pursue bigger game? I mean, taking in a few millions than parceling out favors is just a tad more than reckless.

    Hope springs eternal and all that.

    • #52
  23. Pseudodionysius Inactive
    Pseudodionysius
    @Pseudodionysius

    Never go full petard.

    • #53
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.