August 8, 2017
"It should be neither “astounding” nor “unheard of” for people to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their exalted position."
Gregg Jarrett: A second special counsel must investigate Clinton, Comey, Lynch and others
There was a time, not so long ago, when candidate Donald Trump vowed, if elected, to have his attorney general appoint a special counsel to reopen the Hillary Clinton investigation and, if warranted, bring criminal charges against her.
It never happened, of course. And the president has only himself to blame.
President-elect Trump had a change of heart after winning the election, signaling that his new administration would let bygones be bygones, explaining that Clinton had “suffered” enough. It appeared to be an act of graciousness, the law be damned. Trump should have been reminded of the proverb that no good deed will be left unpunished.
Belatedly, the president has experienced another change of heart. Under siege by a special counsel who seems to have gone rogue, Trump is reversing himself and wants the Clinton investigation reexamined. Remember the campaign chants? If prosecuted and convicted, “lock her up”.
There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser.
Perhaps the president is guilty of a shameless subterfuge. Or, more likely, he genuinely feels he is innocent of any wrongdoing, yet Clinton is not. It’s that fairness thing.
But the law cares not a whit about Trump’s desires and motives. It is not fickle, as politicians are prone to be. If you commit a crime, you should be brought to the dock. Period.
Try telling that immutable fact to the media. They will howl in perfect harmony.
The media believes Clinton is entitled to a “get out of jail free” card. Politics, as it intersects the law, is nothing more than a game like “Monopoly”. Don’t you see? Clinton failed in her bid to become president, so she is somehow exempt from abiding by the law.
Apparently, that is how the Washington Post envisions it. In a recent story, the newspaper justified it this way:
“Trump’s suggestion that his top law enforcement official investigate a former political rival is astounding, and even his allies have said in the past that such a move would be unheard of in the United States.”
By this reasoning, I could rob a bank, run for president but be excused from investigation and/or prosecution upon losing. Really?
Since when do you receive a “get out of jail free” card simply because you are a defeated political rival? Could all manner of crimes be committed by a candidate without fear of legal consequences because of a paucity of votes on election day? Where is that statute written? I can’t seem to locate it.
It should be neither “astounding” nor “unheard of” for people to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their exalted position.
Theodore Roosevelt popularized the long-held principle in democracy that “no one is above the law”. Yet, there now appears to be an exception to the rule of law as it applies to Clinton. Let’s call it the “Clinton Exclusion”.