Via RCP, I … think Ron Fournier’s describing the rule that is, not the rule that should be. That is, he’s not saying it’s a good thing that high-ranking politicians operate according to a different legal standard. He’s just saying them’s the facts. And he’s right. “It’s Soviet-esque,” said Dan Foster, “that we all kind of know that Hillary will never face any consequences and we can only kinda grimly make jokes about it.” Why blame Fournier for our Soviet system?
But wait, is he saying that there should be a double standard for politicians? Huh:
I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar that 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.
He says that as though someone on the Bernie campaign had accused Hillary of shoplifting or something. We’re talking about a major national security breach in which classified information was placed on an unsecured server, indisputably. What’s the risk that presidential candidates are going to be “constantly” charged of crimes like that going forward if Her Majesty is held to the same standard of evidence to trigger a prosecution as any non-royal might be?
Good point by Jim Geraghty too. Where was this higher bar for national candidates when Rick Perry got slapped with BS charges?
Fournier conveniently forgets that “we” already are charging people who are running for president of crimes, based on sheer partisan animosity and desire to generate embarrassing headlines. A partisan, runaway prosecutor indicted Rick Perry on nonsense charges, charges that the court of appeals dismissed and ruled were a violation of Perry’s First Amendment rights and powers as governor. In Wisconsin, a hyper-partisan district attorney and his special prosecutor targeted everyone they could find connected to Scott Walker and launched a multi-county criminal investigation of First Amendment–protected speech.
Show of hands: Who thinks Hillary would be charged even if she wasn’t a candidate this year? The reason she’s above the law isn’t because she’s running for president; if anything, it’s more the case that she’s running for president because she’s above the law, because the web of influence she and Bill have spun over 25 years in Washington protects them from the consequences of behavior that would damage less elite members of the political class like David Petraeus. She was always going to skate on these charges. There’ll simply be more cheers under the current circumstances from Democrats, who are wholly invested in her electoral viability, when she does.