As the infamous Clinton email scandal hits its peak, it’s no surprise that any information we can get our hands on is likely from an exceptionally partisan source trying to sway us before November. Let’s see what we can deduce from all of the political rhetoric and strategic media.

(1) The Actual Emails 

The accusations involve around 30,000 emails she sent on a private server, clintonemail.com, during her time as Secretary of State. It has been stated that 113 of them contained confidential information. There is now discrepancy about the level of classification, as much of the information was declared classified after the emails had been sent, making the use of the private server to convey that information legal (and in line with precedent set by past officials). There is nothing suggesting that the server’s security was breached or that the emails were hacked.

(2) The Comey Statement

Who is James Comey? He is the FBI Director, and a Republican who served as a US attorney and then deputy attorney general for the George W. Bush administration.

Comey gave remarks on the investigation on July 5, setting an eery precedent for how the FBI handles such controversies. The Justice Department has protocol and procedures that Comey completely dismissed in his decision to speak publicly about the situation, ridiculing the individual whom he ultimately decided was not worthy of charges. While Comey argues that his statement was appropriate because of the exceptional interest the public has in this investigation, he fails to recall that almost all cases investigated by the FBI are of interest to the public. Because of this public intrigue, “the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges,” Matthew Miller of the Washington Post explains. Publicly announcing all of the reasons why he deems Clinton deplorable and wrong without indictment  was completely inappropriate, even if some of his claims are understandable or valid. If we want to berate leaders for living above the law and protocol, here’s another prime example.

Now onto the content of his statement. He expressed that Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Yes, it is fair to deem this email debacle careless. Even Clinton admits that she could have made better decisions.

He adds that in assessing previous investigations into “the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” Comey explained that past prosecutions involved “clearly intentional and willful mishandling,” “vast quantities of materials,” and “indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.” He assures us that the FBI did not find any of those characteristics extant in Clinton’s case, and thus finds charges unnecessary.

The criminal code that addresses classified documents requires evidence that the government official “knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location” to find criminal activity. No concrete evidence exists.

(3) The Lynch-Clinton Rendezvous

Monday night, the night before Comey’s statement, Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch were at the same airport and spoke on her plane. Lynch assures us that the conversation consisted of polite small talk centered around travels and grandchildren. It is totally warranted to get skeptical right about now.

Lynch has since stated that meeting with Bill was a mistake and that she would not do it again as it implied inappropriate conduct. In an attempt to solve back for this lapse in judgment, she stated that she would accept whatever recommendation came from the FBI director, and that is exactly what she’s done.

It’s evident that there’s no evidence of Clinton knowingly storing classified information on a private server, so rendezvous with Lynch or not, the case against Clinton doesn’t hold enough water for a trial.

If you’re curious about the potential motives or logic behind Bill’s conversation with the AG or the nature of a Clinton scandal, please feel free to read more: Vox- Bill Clinton Lorette Lynch Plane Meeting.

(4) The Pattern

Let me make clear that this argument, while intriguing and worthy of inspiring some serious American introspection, should be least compelling. It is logically fallacious to say just because wrongdoings have occurred in the past that they should be excused in the present. However, I think it worthy of noting the asymmetrical scrutiny raining down upon Secretary Clinton.

It is interesting to acknowledge the lack of response when similar scandals of greater magnitude have occurred in the past. A few quick examples in which we saw no trial (and very little media coverage):

a. Colin Powell had a personal email (AOL) that he used during his time in office in the exact same manner that Clinton did.

b. the director of the CIA knowingly gave a journalist (his mistress) a series of black books that the Justice Department declared contained “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president.”

c. Bush’s administration deleted 22 million emails on a private server amidst the firing of 8 US attorneys.

We want Hillary to be held to the same standard as the Average Joe? We’re nowhere close seeing as she isn’t even treated the same as her equally wealthy, politically powerful male counterparts. A quick search of  “Hillary Clinton unfairly treated” reveals endless evidence of her being scrutinized more than her male peers, unjustly portrayed by the media, and hit with frequent sexist attacks. I dare to posit that had another character executed her actions, this story would play out quite differently.

(5) The Impacts

There’s no indictment for Hillary. For those of us yearning for a trial, a public release of the information on this case, I invite you along a quick thought experiment. What if there were to be a trial? It would likely land us right where we are now. No concrete evidence of malicious intent behind her actions, but a whole lot of media drama and partisan pleas. In my completely unprofessional and personal opinion, forgoing the (arguably unnecessary) trial to preserve the dignity of this election is a compromise I’m willing to make. Almost all of the “confidential” information was deemed so ex post facto, destroying allegations of criminal activity. There was found to be no harm to national security, and, now that she’s been criticized for carelessness and the State Department scrutinized for its security and technology, she will likely be watched with a close eye when it comes to protocol and improvements will be made to the department’s logistics. That seems like a win to me. I’ll take that win, and I’d like her to take a win in November, too. Drowning Clinton in a trial that they can’t find evidence to support to appease the critics could cost her this frighteningly narrow election, risking the security and prosperity of the United States. I say we cut our losses. No one should be above the system for convenience, but, within the system, her actions don’t warrant a trial. Pursuing a trial because opponents are crying out for one would just ruin the system and the election.

 

---

P.S. I encourage you to actually read these

sources: Foreign Policy- Don’t Blame Hillary; Washington Post- James Comey’s Abuse of Power; Vox- FBI Email; Vox- Bill Clinton Lorette Lynch Plane Meeting; New York Times- FBI Findings; Politifact- Media Reaction to Bush’s Email Controversy; Newsweek- Colin Powell Emails