Throwing Over the Table

Trial lawyers say that when you are in the courtroom; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts.  But if the facts are against you, argue the law.  If, however, the law is also against you, throw over the table.  The facts and law are patently against the Democrats in the Hillary affair and so they are now throwing over the table.

Let me explain.  Few people currently contend that Hillary Clinton did not have classified materials on her private server.  These have been found.  This is a fact.  It is also a fact that classified emails were discovered on Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s computers.

So if the facts are unfavorable, move on to the law.  Thus, James Comey maintained that Hillary did not intend to break the law and therefore was not guilty.  The same has been said about Abedin in that she was unaware that transferring classified documents to personal laptops was illegal.

Unfortunately the law does not make this distinction.  The language of the relevant statutes is plain.  The mental state of the person mishandling classified papers is irrelevant.  As long as the deed is done, an unlawful act has been committed.

Officials at the FBI consequently sought to obscure the meaning of the law by stating that Hillary—and by extension Abedin—had been “extremely careless.”  Despite originally using the actual language of the law in their memos, which is, “gross negligence,” they altered the formulation to make it sound less serious.

This, however, did not do the job because extreme carelessness and gross negligence mean the same thing.  The law, in short, is obviously against Hillary.  On these grounds, she has perpetrated a crime for which many others are presently serving prison terms.

Here’s where throwing over the table comes in.  The former first lady’s defenders dredge up any diversion they can so that the public will not realize the seriousness of her infractions.  An appreciation of the gravity of exposing government secrets to enemy powers must be assiduously avoided.

So what do her Democratic apologists claim?  They say that the accusations are old news; that they were previously litigated.  Still, if our former secretary of state had committed murder ten years ago, would that be old news?  If it were a crime then, wouldn’t it be a crime today?

As to having been litigated, her misdeeds were not.  Comey and his cronies saw to that.  They took the law into their own hands and quashed an investigation the potential outcome of which they found unacceptable.  Their attitude was: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil—except against Donald Trump.

Yet pointing out this cover-up is decried as an attack on the FBI.  Left-wing spokespersons hurry to vindicate this sacred institution.  Nonetheless, no one is attacking rank and file agents.  It is a corrupt and politicized leadership that is questioned.

But should this tactic collapse, the next line of defense is to hide behind the Mueller investigation.  Some matters cannot be discussed, because this would interfere with unearthing Trump’s collaboration with the Russians.  Pertinent evidence cannot even be shared with congress.

Next, if this verbal barricade fails, we are cautioned against instigating a constitutional crisis.  At minimum, we ought not criminalize a political dispute.  This is amusing in that the same partisans had no qualms about criminalizing Richard Nixon during Watergate.

Besides, they continue, the election is over.  Hillary lost; so let her fade into history.  Except that whether she committed a crime is separate from the consequences of the voting.  Again, if she had murdered someone, would we care about the result of the presidential race?

Finally, if none of these approaches succeeds, it is time to start over.  These maneuvers can be repeated in an endless loop that becomes so convoluted few observers are able to keep track.  The public, in particular, can be kept off balance; especially when the mainstream media are in on the game.

The Hillary fiasco is a mess.  Her behavior—including with regard to the Clinton Foundation—has grievously compromised our national integrity.  That is why it must be pursued.  If we sweep her illegalities under the rug, we are merely paving the way for their repetition.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University