Althouse: "Legally though, there's a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president."

April 1, 2016

"Legally though, there's a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president."

"... I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar you have to get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes. ... Politically, there are severe questions about her judgment that voters really have to look into. Legally... there is a higher bar you have to get over before you prosecute somebody who is running for president. That's just a fact."

Said National Journal reporter Ron Fournier, quoted by Glenn Reynolds in "Hillary's delusional media courtiers/Clinton acolytes can't seem to grasp that Beltway-insider status doesn't exempt from prosecution."

75 comments:

HoodlumDoodlum said...: A rule is a rule is a rule, unless you're a woman.

Er, pardon, I mean: a rule is a rule is a rule, unless you're a Clinton.; 4/1/16, 2:11 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Reference: Mr. Show: God's Autobiography

God as Bob Odenkirk doing Robert Evans; some NSFW language. Ya welcome.; 4/1/16, 2:13 PM
khematite said...: Ron Fournier is far from being a Hillary Clinton acolyte. Google his name and you'll be directed to more than a few highly critical articles about her.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillarys-challenge-with-trust/470289/; 4/1/16, 2:13 PM
Fernandinande said...: Titles of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And every Person attempting to hold any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.; 4/1/16, 2:18 PM
Brian said...: So we're all done with equality before the law, then. It's just a fact.; 4/1/16, 2:19 PM
Levi Starks said...: He's right, and wrong.; 4/1/16, 2:21 PM
Chuck said...: Of all of the leading pundits in American media who do not possess a law degree, George Will is the guy who I think could pass the bar exam on a first attempt. And Ron Fournier is the guy I think might never pass.; 4/1/16, 2:24 PM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: Did he ask Gov. Perry's opinion?; 4/1/16, 2:25 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: Do we really want to have lawyers advising rich people in legal jeopardy to run for president? Or office? I think that is a bad theory.

Howabout - if you are running for president it is important for the country that you receive heightened media and legal scrutiny?; 4/1/16, 2:25 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: How high should the bar be for imposing a battery charge on a Presidential candidate's campaign manager?; 4/1/16, 2:26 PM
Curtiss said...: Legally... there is a higher bar you have to get over before you prosecute somebody who is running for president. That's just a fact."

It's a fact only for Democrat candidates.; 4/1/16, 2:29 PM
Nonapod said...: Of course the bar is higher you fools. The Clinton's are far, far above us mere plebes. They are divine, chosen by god to lead us all. We common rabble... we small folk are simple and given to mischief. But any perceived transgression by the great queen Hillary is not for us to contemplate.; 4/1/16, 2:33 PM
Michael Fitzgerald said...: Boiling tar, gathering feathers, and sharpening pitchforks even as we speak...; 4/1/16, 2:38 PM
Bill S. said...: Well then, I think I will run for high office. This will enable me to commit some serious crimes and avoid jail time. If anything, those running for POTUS should be held to a higher standard.; 4/1/16, 2:42 PM
Nonapod said...: Now of course it's true that our government ought to be careful before taking actions that might influence elections.

Sure, when we're talking about non-crime related situations.; 4/1/16, 2:42 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Now of course it's true that our government ought to be careful before taking actions that might influence elections.
It's also true that it certainly seems like government seems much less reluctant to take actions that might influence elections when those actions harm Republicans (see: Ted Stevens, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, etc).

It's true that the Media ought to be careful before taking actions that might unduly influence elections, too.
How does that work in the real world? GWBush DUI story or Rathergate, anyone?

The Right sees the Media and Government as undeclared combatants against them--as tools of the Left. That's the view supported by the facts! It's a rigged game, and honestly there's not much of a countervailing force that could/will change things.; 4/1/16, 2:42 PM
Hagar said...: Aaron Burr was indicted for murder after killing Alexander Hamilton - I think by New Jersey, since that is where the killing took place.
However, he continued in office as Vice-President, and the House did not impeach him. Burr just took care not to set foot in New Jersey again.
This gave rise to some levity abroad when Burr presided over the Senate trial of Justice Chase. It was said that in most countries murderers are haled before the judge, but in America it is the other way around.; 4/1/16, 2:45 PM
$Your \Master$ Your \Master said...: she'll lose badly if she is put against Trump.

....Cruz on the other hand turns... 2016 into another 2012
with hillary winning. hahaha Cruz is a whole lot like Romney in a lot of ways.

Bernie isn't going to be the nominee, I'm sure at this point.
though to be honest he would probably do better against the republicans.
hillary best chance is to face Cruz though.... she is terrified of Trump.; 4/1/16, 2:45 PM
Owen said...: Two legs good, four legs better.

Self-identification is permitted if we say so.; 4/1/16, 2:46 PM
Brando said...: If Obama (and by extension, his AG Loretta Lynch) is worried about getting blamed on the one hand by Republicans if they don't prosecute and blamed by Clintonites (who may be far scarier than Republicans) if they do prosecute, it seems there's a pretty simple solution--appoint a special prosecutor, someone acceptable to Republicans and with enough of a reputation that Democratic charges of "political hack" have less heft. Obviously Clinton's team will try to do what they did to Ken Starr, but they'll do that anyway.; 4/1/16, 2:51 PM
Wince said...: Truthfully, I think you could say that about de minims offenses, say technical misdemeanor battery in press scrum.

But mishandling national security secrets while in high public office? No.; 4/1/16, 2:52 PM
Qwinn said...: "I think of a man, and take away reason and accountability."; 4/1/16, 3:01 PM
Qwinn said...: "she'll lose badly if she is put against Trump.

....Cruz on the other hand turns... 2016 into another 2012"

Erm, I haven't checked the latest polls, but I'm fairly certain that at least several months of polls prior to that suggested the exact opposite.; 4/1/16, 3:02 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: What would really be the worst that could happen to either Comey or Lynch for letting the full weight of the law fall on Clinton like a ton of bricks? No job in an imminent Clinton administration?

At a certain level, like FBI Director or AG, ISTM that personal reputation begins to carry a weight beyond transient circumstantial loyalty. IOW, there is arguable counter-self-interest for both for not just doing their jobs.; 4/1/16, 3:03 PM
Qwinn said...: The bar should be HIGHER for those who are running for office, you complete dimwit. And it always has been, until you drooling sycophantic communist infiltrators captured the culture.; 4/1/16, 3:05 PM
Brando said...: "Erm, I haven't checked the latest polls, but I'm fairly certain that at least several months of polls prior to that suggested the exact opposite."

Yeah--it's not to say Cruz has an easy road against Hillary either--he's got to expand his appeal to moderates if he's going to beat her--but polls so far suggest Republicans will drop any reservation they have for Cruz in order to stop Hillary. With Trump, that's less the case and Trump is the candidate best suited to lose badly to her.; 4/1/16, 3:18 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Ron Fournier is a dishonest man. He repeats the BS that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. He knows better, but he continues to advance that nonsense. Now he's advancing a new line of nonsense. National Journal should be embarrassed. MSNBC's Morning Joe should be embarrassed. Why do they book extremists like Fournier?; 4/1/16, 3:21 PM
traditionalguy said...: Althouse goes Scots Irish Mountain talk: There is a big bar? but war is it. It's up in that thar tree.; 4/1/16, 3:30 PM
effinayright said...: Boiling tar, gathering feathers, and sharpening pitchforks even as we speak...

****

I'm using GPS to pinpoint the location of every lamppost in Washington, DC.

It'll save some time when..; 4/1/16, 3:35 PM
Todd said...: MaxedOutMama said...
Do we really want to have lawyers advising rich people in legal jeopardy to run for president? Or office? I think that is a bad theory.

Howabout - if you are running for president it is important for the country that you receive heightened media and legal scrutiny?

4/1/16, 2:25 PM

OK that right there is just crazy talk (unless the target is a Republican)!; 4/1/16, 3:37 PM
virgil xenophon said...: nonapod@2:33pm/

Thomas Sowell has pretty much summed it all up in his book "The Vision of the Anointed." The title alone says it all..; 4/1/16, 3:37 PM
Todd said...: Like Instapundit says: You want real accountability in government, want the media to do their jobs? Elect a Republican.

If we had a Republican in the big chair, we would know things like a) the real unemployment rate, the real rate of inflation, the real rate of job growth, the real rate of welfare enrollment, etc. We would not only know these things but if they could in any way be spun as bad news, we would know them nightly.

A slow/low housing market is bad for sellers when a Republican is in office but good for first time home buyers when a Democrat is.

Low interest rates are bad for savers / the elderly when a Republican is in office but good for borrowers when a Democrat is.

Every government number published is reviewed with a fine comb when a Republican is in office but taken at face value when a Democrat is (even when they are repeatedly "unexpectedly" revised downward weeks/months later).

All this goes for candidates too. When was the last time any of the MSM did a detailed story on Hillary's REAL email screw-ups, secret, illegal server and all? Can you imagine the 24/7 coverage if a high-ranking Republican had their own, private email server with secret, top secret, and higher documents on it?; 4/1/16, 3:45 PM
zipity said...: Curiously, that "bar" height is measured in microns when the subject is a Republican.

Gee, I wonder why that would be..?; 4/1/16, 3:45 PM
MadisonMan said...: Rules are for little people. Again.; 4/1/16, 3:46 PM
Gospace said...: Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Did he ask Gov. Perry's opinion?

Or Senator Ted Stevens?
Or Sarah Palin, hounded out of office with frivolous ethics complaints?
Or Tom DeLay?
Or Scott Walker and friends?

I've tried really hard to think of a Democrat who had their conviction overturned... and there may be examples, but I can't find one.

Or one who was driven out of office with ethics complaints- but never found guilty of any, but I can't find one.

I know Democrats will scream- But William Jefferson Clinton! But that would be the man who surrendered his law license...; 4/1/16, 3:47 PM
TRISTRAM said...: "Now of course it's true that our government ought to be careful before taking actions that might influence elections."

Jack Ryan.
Tom Delay.
Rick Perry.
Ted Stevens.

Lautenburg/Torrecelli.; 4/1/16, 3:47 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Fournier: "That's just a fact."
When someone says something is a fact, it is usually an opinion.; 4/1/16, 3:50 PM
Achilles said...: Rules are for little people.

Lamposts are for rulers.; 4/1/16, 4:12 PM
holdfast said...: Funny.

While most politicians at least pretend to adhere to a standard of "avoidance of the appearance of impropriety" the Clintons have always maintained that they should be held to a standard of "not indicted yet". And now this pathetic Clinton Courtier Fournier tells us we can't indict her, since she's a Clinton running for office. Perfect Catch 22.; 4/1/16, 4:13 PM
Jay Vogt said...: All of this is moot. Evidence allowing, the "Hillary/Server/Foundation" mess is either in front of a Grand Jury now or soon will be.

No way a DC based Grand Jury votes for an indictment(s) regardless of the facts and prosecution presentation.

Not gonna happen.

Pretty neat way for everyone to walk away . . . . "Hey, we took it to a GJ. How impartial can you get?"

I think this has been the plan all along.; 4/1/16, 4:14 PM
clint said...: Alaska Senator Ted Stevens could not be reached for comment.; 4/1/16, 4:43 PM
Martha said...: Someone with an intact moral compass and a sense of decency would have voluntarily suspended her campaign a year ago when the email scandal erupted. Nit then the Clintons have no sense of shame.; 4/1/16, 4:49 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: I'm guessing our brave government officials are currently busy at work trying to figure out how they can find a balance between pretending to take her crimes seriously while trying not to wound her. I think you will hear a few harsh words about how "this shouldn't have happened!" followed by "however, in the end no real harm was done." and "all that classified stuff really wasn't really important anyway." Hillary will say "sorry, won't happen again (suckers!)" and all will be forgiven (or forgotten).; 4/1/16, 5:14 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Give me a candidate who is deeply committed to the principle of equality under the law.; 4/1/16, 5:19 PM
Michael K said...: "I think I will run for high office. This will enable me to commit some serious crimes and avoid jail time."

It worked for Jaques Chirac, but of course that was France.

I see the corrupt, stinking ruling class lining up to help each other.; 4/1/16, 5:26 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/1/16, 5:26 PM
Comanche Voter said...: Well if a title of nobility will exclude you from federal office--which I think is what Ferdinand above was trying to say, shouldn't Hillary be excluded? She is after all the Queen of Mean.; 4/1/16, 5:29 PM
Fabi said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/1/16, 5:31 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: Folk getting in office to dodge prosecution? This is happening right now, and causing riots, in Brazil. Pres. Rousseff is trying to appoint former pres. Lula to the cabinet, which just incidentally would give him immunity.
But, you know, I always wanted to live in a banana republic. The weather is so good!; 4/1/16, 5:31 PM
Fabi said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/1/16, 5:34 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: My guess is that the most likely thing that AG Lynch would do if faced with a criminal referral against Hillary is nothing. Don't take it to the grand jury, and don't dismiss the referral. Instead, do nothing. That is always a legal option for prosecutors, since they are inevitably faced with more cases to prosecute than resources to prosecute them with. If one of her USAs or asst USAs files charges, or takes the FBI referral to a grand jury, there is a decent chance that Hillary is indicted before the election, likely flipping the White House to the Republicans. And, if she dismisses such a referral, the details will likely be leaded, by both the FBI and intelligence agencies, which would be almost as bad. But, repeating that she is looking into it, for another 7 months, keeps both of those options off the table.

Why would Lynch do this for Hillary. For one thing, she is now essentially campaigning for Obama's third term of office. Her losing would likely be seen by many as a refutation of Obama and his Presidency. Moreover, Lynch was first appointed a US Attorney (USA) by Bill Clinton, and, thus, probably has some loyalty to his wife. She lost that job when GW Bush took over, but got it back under Obama. Still, if the Clintons had not helped her with that job, she likely would never have made it to be the Attorney General. And, then there is the other part of this - that some have suggested that the two of them (Lynch and Hillary) have been talking about Lynch being retained as AG in a new Clinton Administration. Not surprising given Hillary's need to court the Black community.

The interesting thing that I had not taken into account was taking the referral to the DC grand jury, which is likely to be mostly Black, and, thus, sympathetic to Hillary. What happens if the grand jury gets the referral, but it isn't pushed hard enough to get an indictment? It is said that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. It is probable that they can do the opposite, keep one from being indicted, even caught red handed. And, the great thing there is that grand jury hearings are secret, so there is no way, really, to know, and even worse to prove, that a nonindictment was because it wasn't pushed by the prosecutor very hard.

The reason though that I expect no action, over a weak presentation before a grand jury, is that the latter has more risk for Hillary - the grand jury could theoretically figure that with all that smoke (thousands of potential felonies), there must be some fire somewhere.

We shall see.; 4/1/16, 5:37 PM
Fabi said...: "...before you prosecute somebody who is running for president. That's just a fact."

Not even true in the slightest. If it's a fact, then I'd like to see the citation of applicable law.

(I apologize for the deletions -- my clipboard pasting skills are horrible the afternoon); 4/1/16, 5:39 PM
Big Mike said...: As Bill from Texas and Harold pointed out above, this "high bar" is somehow much lower when it comes to Republican candidates, including presidential candidates (e.g., Perry).

But the Democrats have succeeded in hijacking this episode by making it all about what she did is and is not legal. Irrespective of that issue, and the point that Republicans need to hammer relentlessly, is that in the 21st century what Hillary Clinton IS. UNBELIEVABLY. STUPID! How anyone can propose to vote for an individual who is so out of touch with the realities of computer security in the 21st century that she puts sensitive Emails on an unsecured Email server is utterly beyond me. She's out of touch with the present day, and we cannot afford a person who is out of touch with the present day in the White House.; 4/1/16, 5:46 PM
Big Mike said...: And while we're discussing Hillary Clinton and the law, I well remember all those sanctimonious senators and congressmen intoning how "no one is above the law." Thinking about all that, and Bill and Hill Clinton's flouting of the law, makes me want to go sucker punch a Democrat.; 4/1/16, 5:49 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Nixon: when a president does it, that means it is not illegal

Hillary: when someone running for president did it, that means it is not illegal; 4/1/16, 6:04 PM
PB said...: The bar should be lower.; 4/1/16, 6:05 PM
Virgil Hilts said...: If you are a member of the National Democratic Power Elite, the bar is about the level of Chappaquiddick (two months suspended jail). The bar is somewhat above MF Global (over $1 billion "disappears" through misuse of customer funds -- that's OK, only civil damages, no criminal charges).
I do like the depiction of Hillary as the new O.J. Maybe Cruz could make a commercial of Hillary running through the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, with young adorants yelling "Go, Hillary, Go." https://youtu.be/DRNvpP-7pu8.; 4/1/16, 6:06 PM
Danno said...: Blogger khematite said...Ron Fournier is far from being a Hillary Clinton acolyte. Google his name and you'll be directed to more than a few highly critical articles about her.

Fournier has a long history of taking the leftie's side, and James Taranto has written many a blurb on his Accountability Journalism when he was at AP. Maybe his several anti-Hillary (or at least balanced) screeds were done before we reached peak Trump, and he was getting worried that The Donald would send him to the lions in a Trump administration realty show where the people determine the fate of media lackeys by texting in their choice. Bread and circuses I'd like to see!; 4/1/16, 6:12 PM
Wilbur said...: I've found Ron Fournier to be among the most even-handed of the liberal MSM, a low bar indeed.

His view in this matter is not one I share, but I do not condemn him for it.; 4/1/16, 6:14 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Clayton Hennesey said...

What would really be the worst that could happen to either Comey or Lynch for letting the full weight of the law fall on Clinton like a ton of bricks?

Vince Foster could not be reached for comment.; 4/1/16, 6:23 PM
RonF said...: "Clinton acolytes can't seem to grasp that Beltway-insider status doesn't exempt from prosecution."

On the contrary - Americans full well know that Beltway-insider status absolutely protects you from prosecution. It may not be LEGAL. But it's REALITY.; 4/1/16, 6:36 PM
Static Ping said...: My opinion is that the prosecutor should think long and hard if the case is as strong as he or she thinks it is before going after a politician in an election. If you aren't reasonably sure on what you have or if the trespass is trivial, then let it be. Two reasons for this. First, prosecutors really should not be bothering with trivial or weak cases anyway. Second, doing so taints the prosecution as political by default.

None of that seems to apply here. Assuming the information we do know is accurate, she's guilty and the crime is serious. Slam dunk.

Whoever brought that charge against Perry in Texas should really be disbarred.; 4/1/16, 6:46 PM
William said...: I think there should be a higher bar when it comes to jail time and a lower bar when it comes to indictment. I wouldn't want to see Hillary in jail, but she deserves a certain amount of disgrace. Definitely more than was heaped upon Petraeus.......This is the week that Trump's aide got arrested for criminal arm grabbing. I take note of that fact.; 4/1/16, 6:52 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I think there should be a higher bar when it comes to jail time and a lower bar when it comes to indictment. I wouldn't want to see Hillary in jail, but she deserves a certain amount of disgrace.

Why the heck should there be a higher bar when it comes to jail time? Hillary potentially committed thousands of federal crimes, likely many of them felonies. She probably greatly endangered national security, by being both prominent and negligent in protecting the email that she sent and received, much of which contained national secrets. Why should she get a pass for it? Likely much more dangerous to national security that most classified information mishandling, due to the fact that our enemies would have known that her emails were likely to contain US national secrets, due to her position as Secretary of State. Why shouldn't she face increased scrutiny, instead of a lesser likelihood of jail time?

Besides, once there is a conviction, even if stipulated, much of the sentencing flexibility is lost, thanks to Federal Sentencing Guidelines.; 4/1/16, 7:06 PM
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...: Cap Weinberger, Senator Stevens, name the Democrat.; 4/1/16, 7:13 PM
Gahrie said...: Why are so many on the Left determined to become serfs again?; 4/1/16, 8:15 PM
s'opihjerdt said...: That is an established tenet of Gallifreean law, or at least it was when Doctor Who wore a ridiculous scarf while running for president in order to avoid arrest.; 4/1/16, 8:54 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Blogger Gahrie said...
Why are so many on the Left determined to become serfs again?

Oh, no no no no!
They want to make you a serf again.; 4/1/16, 9:07 PM
narciso said...: put it another way 'this is what feudalism looks like'; 4/1/16, 9:20 PM
Qwinn said...: "Blogger khematite said...Ron Fournier is far from being a Hillary Clinton acolyte. Google his name and you'll be directed to more than a few highly critical articles about her."

That tells us little. Were his criticisms from the right or the left? See, this was the most obnoxious thing about all those "Hey, Jon Stewart was actually balanced last night!" moments. No, he wasn't. Ever. The few times he ever attacked the Left, it was always, always, always from the further left.; 4/1/16, 9:43 PM
tim maguire said...: I think it was on here that I saw the perfect description of the Clintons: small town grifters who hit the lottery.; 4/2/16, 5:00 AM
Chris N said...: Admittedly, I don't really like the Clintons, nor do I share their politics, but I happened to catch Hillary's
farewell speech to State Department employees on C-Span.one morning.

The air of celebrity about the whole affair (sycophantic/celebrity attention she got), the vagueness of the rhetoric, impressed upon me a deeper rot.

Clinton likely loathed Obama, loathed losing the Presidency, and did her time to fuel her political ambitions.

Even the speech seemed phoned-in....killing time for an opponent whose policy she probably didn't respect, her slick Political Operation now apparently willing to operate outside the rules....; 4/2/16, 6:24 AM
damikesc said...: I think Ron is basing comments on reality, not legal requirements. LEGALLY, yeah, there's no difference.

In the real world, it very much is.; 4/2/16, 6:29 AM
SeanF said...: damikesc: I think Ron is basing comments on reality, not legal requirements. LEGALLY, yeah, there's no difference.

Then maybe Ron shouldn't have explicitly used the word "legally."; 4/2/16, 6:50 AM
Mrs Whatsit said...: "That's just a fact."

Nobody who's this unclear on the difference between a fact and an opinion should be working as a journalist.; 4/2/16, 8:18 AM