Clinton the Consummate Hypocrite on 'Obstruction'
"Any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted."
“I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. After all these years, it’s a relief to see her come clean about the astounding level of privilege borne of corruption in Barack Obama’s administration that she enjoyed in walking away scot-free after illegally sharing classified information over an unsecured private email server.
Except she was talking about Donald Trump and obstruction of justice after Robert Mueller’s report. She said, “As I read [Mueller’s report] what I thought it said was, ‘Look, we think he obstructed justice … but we’re under the control of the Justice Department.’”
One of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s most obnoxious traits over the last 30 years is to hypocritically accuse their political opponents of exactly the shenanigans and crimes they themselves committed. (“The politics of personal destruction,” anyone?) Bill actually was charged with both obstruction of justice and perjury when he was impeached by the House in 1998. He only survived because Democrats in the Senate refused to convict.
And Hillary “would clearly have been indicted” for her email subterfuge had Obama and his deep-state actors not intervened. Former FBI Director James Comey’s higher loyalty was to Clinton, which is why she’s not in prison. Other Americans were imprisoned for less severe versions of her same offenses.
By contrast, Trump may be a loudmouth on Twitter who relentlessly objected to Mueller’s “witch hunt,” but as Attorney General Bill Barr made clear last week, “The White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.” That utterly undercuts the Left’s obstruction claims, and it should have been enough for Mueller to not abdicate his prosecutorial mandate to come to that conclusion. Instead, he left the door open for demagogues and hypocrites like Clinton to continue insisting Trump is guilty of obstruction.
Clinton could perhaps be given one cheer for saying impeachment “should be something undertaken in a really serious, diligent way based on evidence, not on partisan advantage.” She applauded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who she said was “right to be cautious” about it. But even in this Clinton exposed her personal bitterness. “You don’t put impeachment on the table as the only item on the table and say you’re going to get there no matter what, which is what happened in ‘99,” she advised. That’s a grossly skewed perspective on her husband’s impeachment. Moreover, she’s actually just setting the table for the “serious, diligent” way Democrats eventually conclude to impeach Trump.
Update 4/25: In a Washington Post op-ed Wednesday, Clinton continued her post-Mueller assault. “Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now,” she wrote. “Watergate offers a better precedent.”
We’re sure it’s purely coincidental that Watergate was the time when Democrats forced the resignation of a Republican president. That’s why it’s a “better precedent” than when her husband was impeached for actually committing obstruction of justice and perjury.