Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Trump’s bizarre claim that the Clinton email controversy is ‘bigger than Watergate’



“This is bigger than Watergate. This is bigger than Watergate. In my opinion. This is bigger than Watergate.”
— Donald Trump, campaign rally, Oct. 28

Trump has claimed that the Hillary Clinton email controversy is the biggest political scandal “since” Watergate, but now he flatly says it is “bigger” than Watergate. His campaign is now using this line:

There are a lot of unknowns about the Clinton investigation (see our Q&A here) right now, but we know a lot about the Watergate scandal. And the basic facts of both cases right now just don’t compare. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

FBI Director James B. Comey announced Friday that new emails had been found that might be relevant to the Hillary Clinton investigation. He wrote a cryptic letter to Congress that contained few details.

Law enforcement sources have told reporters that the emails were found on a computer that belonged to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, who had been Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department. The emails surfaced during an underage sexting investigation into Weiner.

There is not enough information right now to know whether the new emails will lead to any other developments. It does not appear as if the FBI has yet examined them in depth, and Comey had said in the letter that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether the material may or may not be significant” or whether the emails contained classified information.

We don’t know if they were addressed to and from Clinton, or if they are emails that the FBI already had reviewed in the earlier investigation into her use of a private server.

No charges ever have been filed in the Clinton email case; Comey has said the FBI could not find evidence of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.” There is no way to know whether the new emails would change that. (For more, see all of our fact-checks on the Clinton email issue.)

On the other hand, we know a lot about the Watergate scandal from the 1970s, thanks to the dogged, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting of The Washington Post’s Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The scandal began with a burglary of the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate complex and led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon, and the criminal convictions and guilty pleas of dozens of people involved in the massive campaign of sabotage and espionage on behalf of Nixon’s reelection effort and the ensuing coverup.

The key here is that there were clear violations of law that led to criminal convictions of aides and co-conspirators. In total, 69 people were charged with crimes, and 48 people pleaded guilty.

Here’s a list of some of the major figures who were implicated in the Watergate scandal, including the 1972 burglary and the following coverup. All were found guilty except for Nixon, who was pardoned.

President Richard M. Nixon (Nixon resigned in disgrace while facing impeachment. A Watergate grand jury named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. One month after being sworn in as president, Gerald Ford granted a “full, free and absolute pardon” for all crimes that Nixon “committed or may have committed” when he was in the White House.)
John N. Mitchell, former attorney general and Nixon reelection campaign manager
H.R. Haldeman, White House chief of staff
John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs
Charles W. Colson, White House counsel
John Dean, White House counsel
Kenneth Wells Parkinson, Nixon reelection committee
Gordon Creighton Strachan, White House aide
Fred C. LaRue, Nixon reelection committee
Jeb S. Magruder, Nixon reelection committee
Robert C. Mardian, Nixon reelection committee attorney (Mardian’s conviction of conspiracy to obstruct justice was overturned on appeal.)
Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, James W. McCord Jr., Frank Sturgis; the burglars of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters
G. Gordon Liddy, Nixon aide
E. Howard Hunt, Jr., CIA agent and former White House aide
In response to Trump’s comments, Bernstein (who authored a biography of Hillary Clinton) tweeted that there is “no way” the Clinton emails are “bigger than Watergate” or close to it:


Nick Akerman, one of the prosecutors in the Watergate case, rejected Trump’s statement that the emails case is “bigger than Watergate,” according to mic.com political reporter Celeste Katz: “Donald Trump’s statement that this is bigger than Watergate is totally absurd. There is no evidence of any violation of law. For Trump to reach that conclusion based on a total lack of evidence is reminiscent of the innuendo spread by Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s.” [...]

The Trump campaign did not provide evidence of how the Clinton emails are “bigger than Watergate,” but issued this statement in response to our inquiry: “Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt candidates ever to run for president and she has enlisted the biased media to act as her campaign’s propaganda arm. Americans know that Clinton’s email scandal disqualifies her for the presidency and her candidacy will go down as one of the most unethical moments in political history.”

The Pinocchio Test

Trump says the Clinton email scandal is “bigger than Watergate,” given Comey’s letter to Congress about new emails that might be relevant to the Clinton email scandal. But there is not enough information available right now to know whether these emails will make a difference in the case. Comey’s letter said the FBI “cannot yet assess whether the material may or may not be significant.”

So far, there have been no criminal charges, and therefore no convictions or guilty pleas in the Clinton email scandal. That makes the Clinton emails fundamentally different from Watergate, where 48 people were found guilty. 

Trump earns Four more Pinocchios for this absurd comparison.

22 comments:

  1. Left wing drivel. If The DOJ wanted to seriously go after these people instead of giving them immunity for no reason they could also get convictions. And this is a national security issue, not a political one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is bigger than Watergate. Watergate was a battle between the free press and the executive branch. Here, much of the press is in soft cahoots with the alleged criminal. Much more dangerous when the fourth estate falls short.

    ReplyDelete
  3. sorry - your charges of soft cahoots being more dangerous is your own evaluation - it is not a legal definition even if it were true. Again it has not been established that she has broken the law whereas with Watergate there was no question about it.

    It is typical of Trump to use a wide paint brush and then smear everyplace he can reach. This is not a criminal charge but an ideological one - primary consideration is to be one of his opponents

    ReplyDelete
  4. substituted categories such as "left wing drivel" for reasoned arguments doesn't get you far - unless you are part of Trump's choir that he is preaching to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Respectfully disagree. In Watergate, President Nixon was completely and totally unaware of all aspects of the break-in, at least initially. With Mailgate, Ms. Clinton was part and parcel of setting up the server from the get-go, and boss of which emails would be erased.

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes we clearly disagree.

    Bottom line - at the present we don't have clarity as to whether she has committed any crime whereas there is no question regarding Watergate. It could be that will change when the FBI actually reads the emails.

    A possible criminal act is not a greater criminal act than a genuine criminal act. If Trump had said, "When it is proven that she is a criminal it will be greater than Watergate - we have what to talk about. Or put another way, saying that Trump's involvement with Putin and Russia's meddling with the US elections is a greater crime than anything that Clinton might have done. The mere fact that it hasn't been proven that Trump and Putin are collaborating is no different than saying that Clinton's actions are worse than Watergate.

    Please apply the same standards to both parties.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There was no serious attempt to convict anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess you think the entire FBI just sits around and twiddles its thumbs

    ReplyDelete
  9. The FBI does its job. That's why the bovine excrement is hitting the rotating blade apparatus. It's the DOJ that has not done its job. I had security clearance and I know that had anyone in my field done a fraction of what Hillary and her goons did they would go to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, under Comey until now they actively destroy a strong indictment of Hillary

    ReplyDelete
  11. In this case, almost certainly, yes. They gave immunity deals to loads of people for absolutely no reason. Normally they do this to get one person to inform on the other. In this case they got nothing at all in return for the immunity.

    The FBI works for the DOJ, and the head of the DOJ had a hush-hush meeting with the husband of the person being investigated? You are sadly mistaken if you think the FBI did a thorough, routine investigation. If this were you or me they were investigating we'd be sitting in jail now.

    Tell me another case where the AG says, "I'll follow whatever the FBI recommends"? She knew the result was rigged, so she decided to hide behind Comey. But with all this one thing Comey made clear was that the things she did would normally face some sort of internal discipline and definitely loss of clearance, if not actual criminal prosecution. She did not get a clean bill of health even from Comey. To say that this is just a right wing conspiracy as she claims is just silly.

    The fact that she's a crook is important. She received the questions in advance from Donna Brazile, another crook. But what about Israel? She backs the Iran deal. Huma Abedin is (was?) her closest adviser, and Huma comes from a family of hardcore Islamists. Huma was on the board of her family's hardcore Islamist newspaper, and nobody even cares? I could go on for pages.

    Any Jew who votes for Hillary is out of his mind in my opinion. Sorry. I love and respect you generally, but you are on the wrong side of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm pretty sure Guiliani said the same, but I don't have time to re-listen to the interview. He was quite the successful prosecutor in his day.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, but when former president suspiciously meets DOJ head in the middle of a tarmac, there's plenty of reason to suspect the dogs have been called off.

    When said head of DOJ then recused herself, leaving a prosecutorial decision in the hands of a law enforcement officer, there is plenty of reason to suspect that the system has been compromised.

    And when said law enforcement officer then develops a new defense to a criminal statute (i.e., 'extreme carelessness') where no such defense exists, then anyone with any understanding of the law knows that a political charade has occurred.

    We all get you're a Hillary supporter, but stick to psychology. You clearly have no understanding of the law, and how it has been compromised here in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes you understand law according to the way Trump thinks - sorry but that is not the majority understanding. I understand very well what is going on - read Krauthammer for example who is not going to vote for either Clinton or Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry, not good enough. Comment on each of the three legal irregularities I mentioned. Using the word Trump to end discussion is either an indication of your bias, your ignorance, or your inability to make a reasoned response.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Watergate did not jeopardize American national security. Nixon was trying to win an election. Hillary's emails were exposed to hostile actors. I agree with Trump. In any event, the Pinocchios meted out by the Wash Post should be limited to fact statements, not opinions. This official release by Comey in July speaks for itself: "With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

    ReplyDelete
  17. This was not in the FBI's hands. The power to empanel a grand jury, which would have allowed them to subpeona witnesses and devices, was in the hands of the DOJ, not the FBI. This was never done, likely b/c it was blocked by the political partisan decision makers at the head of the DOJ (one of whom held a clandestine meeting, discovered only by accident, with the husband of the chief suspect). It is correct to say that without empaneling a grand jury and issuing subpeonaes, there never was a serious attempt made to convict anyone. Not to mention the many aspersions cast on the very soft questioning of Clinton, the fact that a possible co-conspirator (Cheryl Mills) was allowed immunity as Hillary's lawyer, and many other irregularities in this so-called investigation, too many to list here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Same standard. Fine. Let's compare the two politician states-people involved in Watergate and Mailgate. What crime did Richard Nixon commit, or was he accused of committing? None that I'm aware of at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This new one seems to be a lot bigger than Watergate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hgUqL9yz3Xg#action=share

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is this guy reliable? http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-wont-survive-another-wikileaks-dump/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just presenting my opinion and not in the mood of a back and forth, so take it or leave it.

    If Clinton becomes president, we may never know the scope of her corruption. But if Trump becomes president, we will learn that there isn't an avenue of corruption she wasn't totally fine with just for her personal gain. She armed murderers and acted in the country's account for her own personal gain and aided and abetted and enabled all sorts of criminals in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am bemused that extreme leftist commentary of non - Torah subjects by extremely biased commentators eliciting basically nonsensical; material that is being discredited as I write this ...is deemed to be credible!!
    THAT IS QUITE A SENTENCE: BUT FAIR COMMENTARY!

    Prithe tell - how credible to rave about Hillary Clinton's non - extant virtues... given what is known.. and given what will indubitably follow!
    Surely, inevitably there will be criminal charges.. as far too much is known about MERELY the Clinton foundation... and it is being investigated by the FBI... which has decided to act legally tenable manner - finally!!
    AS ARE THE ILLEGAL ACTS PER THOSE EMAILS!!!

    Verily I want to know what CNN and others and articles emanating have anything to do with TORAH!!
    This site is replete with such tripe!
    Trump is no angel... but will make a decent President.
    I WISDH I WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR USA PRESIDENT!!!!!@
    Geoff Seidner
    Melbourne
    East St Kilda
    Australia

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.