Whatever Hillary Clinton is selling, the panel on Morning Joe ain’t buying. The presumed Democratic frontrunner tried turning the Saga of the Secret Server into a joke this weekend, and then made it part of the Hillary fantasy of the vast right-wing conspiracy in further remarks. Not only does that not fly with the commentariat, Chuck Todd told the panel this morning, it’s no longer working on Democrat voters in Iowa, all thanks to three letters — F, B, and I:
The Daily Caller has the transcript, in which Joe Scarborough is even more vehemently angered than yesterday over the joke:
Joe Scarborough: Forget the first problem, which was as you were saying, deciding to set up your own serve outside the State Department.
Chuck Todd: That’s why we’re here.
Scarborough: Let’s just go to last night. She’s in a fundraiser, this is much ado about nothing. And she is doing Snapchat jokes while the FBI is expanding their investigation, and now 305 emails and beyond, where all of us, who report the news, who you know read the news, look at it and go, well, that’s plainly not true. Just look at what se did last night and she’s digging herself if deeper in a a hole. By destroying her credibility. Why is she doing it?
Todd: You know, this is the only explanation is, it’s how they’ve handled these situations for the last 25 years.
Scarborough: But she’s fighting The New York Times, not Breitbart.
Todd: They believe they have been fighting The New York Times, by the way, for 50 years.
Scarborough: Let me say this, it’s the FBI, not Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
Todd: Which by the way, those three letters, because, look, I found the same thing. In my three days in Iowa when I was talking to Democrats out there and not just Democrats who want a job, right, Democrats who just simply are voting and taking their kids to the fair. The letters FBI is what changed this story. This is the difference between us and Washington and New York saying and her effectively a month ago being able to say this is you guys in the media that care about this, voters don’t. That was true a month ago. The three letters FBI totally changed the game.
The Clintons don’t appear to understand that new reality. They’re using an old playbook from their personal peccadilloes in the past in a new situation that deals directly and solely with Hillary’s official conduct in office. Their attack on supposedly “partisan” questions that the FBI is currently investigating is a smear of the agency, Jen Rubin argues, and one that the media should be calling out:
Clinton’s strategy to make this seem like just another GOP witch hunt. She denounces the controversy as a “partisan game” and vows she “won’t get down in the mud with them. I won’t play politics with national security or dishonor the memory of those we lost.” But the “them” includes inspectors general in a Democratic administration and the FBI. Is she accusing them of corruption? Are they being bamboozled by Republicans? If she really believes this is the case, then she should make her case. And if she does not, then she — as someone who wants to lead the executive branch — should stop smearing law enforcement officials. …
Clinton’s jokes and unseemly smears are no response to the scandal enveloping her campaign. Rather, they convey cavalier indifference bordering on arrogance. And those qualities are precisely what landed her in this mess to begin with. She may win the Democratic nomination by default, but the damage she is inflicting on herself makes it less and less likely another Clinton will occupy the Oval Office.
Well, plenty of people on our side of the political divide have publicly fretted over the FBI’s integrity too, assuming that they’ll find a way to let this investigation stall out. Is that a fair assumption? The Hill reminded us yesterday that FBI Director James Comey has a hard-won reputation for independence, perhaps more so than any other Barack Obama appointee other than Hillary Clinton. Her independence was decidedly self-serving, of course, which is why Comey’s in this position at all. Can Comey deliver on that independence if the evidence shows criminal conduct? That’s one question — but it’s not the entire question:
As FBI director, Comey has gone after other big names, including then-CIA Director David Petraeus for mishandling classified information. Petraeus resigned and later pleaded guilty, a stunning fall for an official who once garnered presidential buzz. And Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is now facing federal corruption charges, the first sitting senator indicted since 2008.
Comey’s also seen his share of controversy as FBI chief, including a speech where he said all law enforcement officials are “a little bit racist.” And the U.S. ambassador to Poland apologized to that country after Comey suggested many Poles aided in the Holocaust, calling them “murderers and accomplices” who believed they “didn’t do something evil.”
Comey is now under pressure from both Republican lawmakers and the Clinton campaign as the FBI investigates the Democratic front-runner’s emails. …
So far, Republican lawmakers have expressed confidence in Comey, but made clear they have high expectations.
Frankly, so does every person who ever had to endure repeated security briefings on the proper handling of classified material. Those of us who have been through this at any level, and my own level was decidedly lower than many, understand that the FBI would not have hesitated to recommend prosecution for anyone who flouted security and repeatedly retained unauthorized materials in an unsecured and unapproved location, with or without an intent to distribute it.
Comey has earned that reputation for independence, but … Comey’s not the one who decides to prosecute. That decision will go to his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, whose independence has yet to be tested, let alone demonstrated. If Comey recommends a criminal prosecution for Hillary and/or her team, will the White House allow it to go forward? That, more than Comey, is the real question mark.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member