The other col­lu­sion

A full and ac­cu­rate ac­count­ing of scan­dal must in­clude Hil­lary

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

There are two sides to every coin and maybe that goes for the Rus­sian col­lu­sion epic, too. So far we’ve seen only one side of that coin. The Mueller in­ves­ti­ga­tion goes mer­rily along try­ing to find ev­i­dence that Don­ald Trump con­spired with Moscow male­fac­tors to put the 2016 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion on ice.

The Jus­tice De­part­ment will soon re­lease the re­sults of the de­part­ment’s in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the Clin­ton email scan­dal, and it prom­ises to pro­vide at least a hint of what lies on the other side of the coin. If the de­part­ment’s Demo­cratic par­ti­sans are found to have bent the law into a shape they thought would pre­serve Hil­lary’s electabil­ity, it would be only fair to go deeper to see whether there was Jus­tice De­part­ment col­lu­sion with Hil­lary Clin­ton. Every­one who owes a debt to the piper must pay up.

Jus­tice De­part­ment In­spec­tor Gen­eral Michael Horowitz’s re­port on whether Jus­tice and FBI of­fi­cials han­dled the Clin­ton email in­ves­ti­ga­tion above-board could be a “yu­u­u­uge” gift to Pres­i­dent Trump when it is re­leased Thurs­day, on the pres­i­dent’s 72nd birth­day. Mr. Horowitz has al­ready pro­duced ev­i­dence that fishy things hap­pened. He is­sued a crim­i­nal re­fer­ral in April that led to the fir­ing of deputy FBI direc­tor An­drew McCabe for his “lack of can­dor” about whether and how he leaked to the press. (When reg­u­lar folks fall short of can­dor, it’s called “ly­ing.”)

The pres­i­dent has seared the Twittersphere with the inces­sant mantra that there was no col­lu­sion with Russia — at least not on the part of him­self or his peo­ple. Well-man­nered Wash­ing­to­ni­ans who com­plain that such mouthy tongue-lashing is un­be­com­ing of his office for­get that cham­pi­ons of the ring and bal­lot box don’t of­ten throw in the towel with­out putting up a fight.

James Comey, the for­mer direc­tor of the FBI, and Loretta Lynch, the for­mer U.S. at­tor­ney gen­eral, are ex­pected to be in for rough crit­i­cism for en­abling Mrs. Clin­ton to es­cape pros­e­cu­tion for her use of a se­cret email server while sec­re­tary of State. They looked the other way when her team de­stroyed 30,000 emails and smashed their elec­tronic de­vices, lest they re­veal some­thing in­crim­i­nat­ing. Mr. Horowitz has spent a year in­ter­view­ing dozens of wit­nesses and comb­ing through more than a mil­lion pages of doc­u­ments track­ing back to the 2016 elec­tion cam­paign.

No one can say for cer­tain that Mr. Comey’s con­tra­dic­tory an­nounce­ments that at var­i­ous times con­demned and ex­on­er­ated Mrs. Clin­ton, and Mrs. Lynch’s ma­nip­u­la­tion of what the in­ves­ti­ga­tion turned up, would have cost Hil­lary a re­turn to the White House. Nor can any­one say she played by her own set of rules.

The fi­asco has lifted the lid on malev­o­lent char­ac­ters within of­fi­cial­dom, those now called “the deep state,” at­tempt­ing to sub­sti­tute their own choice for the choice of the Amer­i­can peo­ple. It has metas­ta­sized into Robert Mueller’s des­per­ate search for ev­i­dence of Trump col­lu­sion with Russia. So far it ap­pears that Mr. Mueller would have had bet­ter luck look­ing for the Loch Ness Mon­ster in the Wash­ing­ton swamp where so many strange crit­ters pros­per.

Mr. Mueller’s search for wrong­do­ing has turned up ev­i­dence of col­lu­sion, but not by Don­ald Trump. Ac­counts of such ev­i­dence, some of it leaked to re­porters who were trusted to put the right spin on it, have re­vealed among other things that Mrs. Clin­ton’s cam­paign paid for the dis­cred­ited dossier that told of all man­ner of naughty in­dis­cre­tions of the pres­i­dent. The dossier was im­por­tant to get­ting au­tho­riza­tion by the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court to spy on Mr. Trump’s as­so­ciates. When truth will out, as it usu­ally does, the ev­i­dence might show that Hil­lary, not the Don­ald, was the vil­lain.

It’s im­por­tant to re­mem­ber that the elec­tion-year mis­chief oc­curred on Barack Obama’s watch. Rather than order his sec­re­tary of State to shut down her unau­tho­rized email chan­nel, he used it him­self to com­mu­ni­cate with her. Amer­i­cans ex­pected bet­ter from the man who was go­ing to trans­form Amer­ica once and for all.

There will be no fi­nal con­clu­sion to the col­lu­sion nar­ra­tive un­til the Clin­ton as­so­ciates and their hid­den as­sets in the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion get the same hard scru­tiny to which Mr. Trump has been sub­jected. Al­low­ing the rest of the story to be swept un­der a rug of de­ceit, ob­fus­ca­tion and calumny would con­firm sus­pi­cions that the rule of law, the coin of Amer­i­can lib­erty, was squan­dered.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.