Clinton Email Scandal: It's Far From Over

Clinton Email Scandal: It's Far From Over
Story Stream
recent articles

Hillary Clinton skated across the pond on thin ice, but her email problems will last through November.

The FBI’s refusal to recommend an indictment is obviously a huge win for Clinton. But her reluctance to take a victory lap is instructive. She knows she will continue to face withering attacks—attacks she cannot wave off as ridiculous conspiracy theories. After all, FBI Director James Comey publicly shredded all the defenses Hillary used for the past year.

What can you expect in the coming weeks and months?

First, you will see plenty of Republican advertisements showing Clinton’s previous lies and misstatements on this issue. Video clips will show her saying, “I never sent or received anything classified,” and, after that proved false, “I never sent or received anything marked classified.”

 Those statements will be juxtaposed with Comey describing the FBI’s evidence. Also proven false: Hillary’s statements, under oath, that she turned over all her work-related emails. The simple, devastating message of these ads: Clinton is utterly untrustworthy. The public already believes that. The ads will cement that perception, using Clinton’s own voice.

Second, the Republicans will hold several hearings designed to reveal the FBI’s evidence against Clinton. If they cannot get the key evidence on the record, they will likely portray this as an official coverup. They will also want to know what Comey meant when he said Clinton was “extremely careless.” How does that differ from the legal term of “gross negligence”?

Here, Clinton is fortunate, twice over. Comey is highly respected. He’s a top-notch lawyer who can handle these questions with ease. She’s also fortunate that the investigators this time are elected officials, not legal counsel for the congressional committees. Senators and representatives have proven, time after time, that they couldn’t investigate a missing ham sandwich. And they are too vain to turn over the hearings to professionals who could.

Third, you will see lots of sad stories from servicemen and women and intelligence officials who were charged with crimes even though they revealed almost nothing, mishandled far less than Clinton, and only did so inadvertently. The contrast with Hillary’s open-door server will be stark. The goal is to show that the former secretary of state and her aides received special treatment.

Special treatment is a big deal because our democracy is premised on the notion that everyone is subject to the same laws, the same treatment by government. That is supposed to include the rich and powerful.

The public’s growing conviction that “equal treatment” is a farce is the heart of both Bernie Sanders’ and Donald Trump’s campaigns. From different sides, they are saying the top 1 percent get special deals and insider treatment. Voters know it in their guts. Just glance at the tax code, they say. It’s filled with carve-outs for special interests. Every one of them earned some congressman a dump truck full of campaign cash and some lobbyist a lovely summer home.

You will also see lots of questions about the Clinton Family Foundation and whether it is run honestly, or even legally. Director Comey said nothing about that white-collar crime investigation. The Republicans assert that the foundation is effectively a slush fund for the Clinton political machine. They will add that Bill Clinton got rich selling insider access, much of it while Hillary was in government.

Fourth, look to see if there are leaks from ordinary FBI agents, the ones who did the nitty-gritty investigation, and from mid-level intelligence agents who examined the security classifications. If they think their hard work was buried for political reasons, they won’t stay quiet. On the other hand, if you don’t see many leaks, they probably think the director did an impartial job.

Besides those important signs, there’s one even bigger one. Are there verbatim leaks from secret documents, especially late in the campaign?

If you see those, they won’t say, “Courtesy of the Kremlin,” but that’s who will be leaking them. Right now, we simply don’t know if the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or others managed to hack Hillary’s servers. Comey only said the servers “might” have been breached. We won’t know until late September and early October, when the campaign is in the final stretch.

Why would Moscow want to damage Hillary and help Trump?

The answer, in a word, is NATO. Under President Bill Clinton, NATO expanded into Central and Eastern Europe, right up to Russia’s door, thanks to American support. Putin has made clear that expanding NATO even further, to Ukraine and Georgia, is completely unacceptable.

For now, the U.S. has backed off. But Putin is also signaling that the existing NATO bloc endangers Russian national security. That’s why he is challenging NATO forces in the Baltic, home to many ethnic Russians and dangerously close to St. Petersburg. Moscow is well aware that Hillary Clinton has always supported this NATO enlargement and backed the European Union’s expansion into Eastern Europe. Donald Trump, by contrast, has questioned the very existence of NATO. It’s not hard to figure the Kremlin’s preferences in this race.

Beijing’s preferences are different. They are furious over Trump’s plans to declare China a “currency manipulator,” which would immediately jack up the price of Chinese exports to America. China’s entire economy—indeed, its political stability—is built on its export competitiveness. Trump intends to attack that directly. His plans to rebuild the U.S. military would also mean a more robust U.S. Navy in Asian waters, where China has been rapidly expanding its military reach. So, if Beijing has secret information on Hillary, it has every reason to keep it secret.

Moscow does not. It has formidable cyber-espionage capabilities, and it surely knew, from the beginning, that Hillary Clinton had posted a giant “Hack My Server” sign on her back. That’s why cybersecurity experts fear the Russians had access to everything that passed through her system. They would not be alone.

Berlin, Paris, Jerusalem, and London might have the same information, but there is a crucial difference. They won’t leak it. They are American partners and undoubtedly prefer the stability of a Clinton administration. In any case, the risks are too high for them, the gains too small. That’s not true for Moscow. Their leaks would be indirect, wiped clean of the Kremlin’s fingerprints. And they will only come if Moscow has something juicy. If it does, then Vladimir Putin has an October surprise wrapped up and waiting.

RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he is founding director of PIPES, the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security. He blogs at and can be reached at

Show commentsHide Comments