Thank you for downloading this Simon & Schuster ebook.
* * *
Get a FREE ebook when you join our mailing list. Plus, get updates on new releases, deals, recommended reads, and more from Simon & Schuster. Click below to sign up and see terms and conditions.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP
Already a subscriber? Provide your email again so we can register this ebook and send you more of what you like to read. You will continue to receive exclusive offers in your inbox.
Contents
EPIGRAPH
INTRODUCTION The Illegitimate President
PART I The Invention of a Scandal
CHAPTER ONE The Wary Candidate
CHAPTER TWO The Times Gets the Story Half-Wrong
CHAPTER THREE The Times Gets It Wrong Again
CHAPTER FOUR The FBI Criminal Investigation
PART II The Dangers of a Righteous Man
CHAPTER FIVE Policy and Fairness Be Damned
CHAPTER SIX Giuliani in the Shadows?
CHAPTER SEVEN The Fallacy of the False Choice
CHAPTER EIGHT Comey’s Letter Elects Donald Trump
EPILOGUE It’s Time for an Impeachment and Twenty-Fifth Amendment Investigation
Acknowledgments
About the Author
Notes
Index
To Carolyn Atwell-Davis wife, partner, friend, critic, always there through thick and thin
Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.
—Washington Post, editorial, September 8, 2016
[Impeachable offenses] proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 65, March 7, 1788
INTRODUCTION
* * *
The Illegitimate President
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election and Donald Trump won it for the single, decisive reason that FBI director James Comey wrote his infamous letter to Congress on October 28, 2016, announcing the discovery of a laptop computer belonging to Anthony Weiner that contained thousands of copies of Clinton’s emails. This strange and surprising news mere days before the election eroded Clinton’s support just enough that she lost the electoral college despite handily winning the popular vote. Some reasonable people continue to disagree with this assertion, citing Clinton’s campaign flaws or Trump’s appeal to his base of voters. But although such explanations may make the election results more logical, or less absurd, they are essentially wrong. All available pre– vs. post–October 28 election poll data indicates that Hillary Clinton would have won the election had Comey not sent the letter.
Indeed, the assertion that Comey’s letter cost Clinton the election has become more widely accepted, especially—ironically—after Comey was fired by Trump. Yet the letter was the final event in a sequence that will only gain historical importance and scrutiny in the years ahead. Today, as the Trump administration lurches from one self-created crisis to the next, it is important to more fully understand the events—many widely known but others comprehended by only a few—that led to this unexpected outcome, an election so bizarre and cataclysmic in its nature and magnitude that next to the 9/11 attacks, it stands as the most important event in America in the twenty-first century to date. History and truth require a full accounting. That is the intention of this book.
But there also is a more timely context to this book, which was completed in October 2017. Between May 9, 2017, when Trump fired Comey over his refusal to halt the Russia-collusion investigation, and June 8, when Comey accused Trump of trying to impede his investigation, there was a serious possibility of an impeachment investigation based on an attempted obstruction of justice and for other reasons. At the time of this writing, Trump’s unpredictable and offensive behavior has furthered the call for his removal, potentially under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment for mental impairment that puts the nation at risk. Thus it is now exponentially more important to show that Trump became president only because Comey wrote his letter. Add to this the insidious influence of the Russians in spreading fake news about Clinton with evidence that Trump campaign officials or associates communicated with Russian officials during the campaign. If an impeachment investigation process begins, the fact that Trump was elected by illegitimate means is the best rebuttal to those who would oppose the investigation in the belief that it was an unimpaired free and fair election. The election was impaired—by James Comey—and the stakes for America’s future could not be higher.
PART I
* * *
The Invention of a Scandal
CHAPTER ONE
* * *
The Wary Candidate
Any discussion of why Hillary Clinton decided to use a private server for her emails and why the revelation of that fact contributed to her 2016 Election Day loss must begin with a political truth about her: Despite the millions of voters who revere her, she has long been the target of hatred, criticism, and misinformation. In her more than thirty-five years of public life—beginning as the spouse of a six-term governor in 1978, her experience as first lady in the White House over two terms of Bill Clinton’s presidency, then as a senator from New York, as a presidential candidate in 2008, and as secretary of state before her 2016 campaign—she has learned to be cautious when dealing with the media.
No one in public political life, especially Hillary Clinton, would claim that tough treatment by the media doesn’t go with the territory. There has been legitimate criticism that Clinton and her 2016 campaign staff were not sufficiently prepared to deal with the emails story. But one way to understand her behavior is to put it in the context of what she had learned years earlier in dealing with a generally critical media.
There are many episodes from Clinton’s public life that offer insight into her and her campaign’s initial instincts in dealing with the email server story, but several stand out.
Perhaps the most dramatic was the invented scandal called Whitewater. When the New York Times broke the story on its front page on March 8, 1992, most readers had a hard time figuring out what the scandal was, much less understanding a very confusing story. Even the headline was odd, since it didn’t seem to merit front-page treatment—“THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Clintons Joined S.&L. Operator in an Ozark Real-Estate Venture.”
It was also inaccurate. The partner of the Clintons referred to, James McDougal, was not an S&L operator in 1978, when they made a real estate investment with him and his wife, Susan (he became an S&L operator only years later). In any case, the entire story was as simple as this: Mr. and Mrs. McDougal approached the Clintons in 1978 about purchasing about two hundred acres of land in the picturesque Ozark Mountains in northwest Arkansas, alongside the White River, to subdivide the land and build and sell vacation homes. Hillary Clinton took the lead in paperwork, financial decisions, and trying to keep up with the details.
Just as the Clintons and McDougals together borrowed $200,000 for what was called the Whitewater Development Corporation, interest rates hit 20 percent and the vacation-home-buying market dried up. Their investment failed. Years later, the only offense ever shown by Hillary and Bill Clinton regarding their Whitewater activities was their taking a $4,000 personal tax deduction for interest instead of a deduction for their corporation. They ended up re
paying the IRS, plus interest, for the value of that deduction.
That was the entire Whitewater story—and it didn’t change very much over the years. But because it was a front-page story in the Times, a lot of journalists, as is their custom, figured there must be more there than met the eye. And off they went. The sordid details of all the other branches and sub-branches of the bogus “scandal” called Whitewater are not relevant here. But reading over the headlines in the 1990s involving Whitewater, often on the front pages of the nation’s three major newspapers—the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal—as well as the breathless reporting every night on the major TV news programs—leaves even an objective observer with the inevitable takeaway: What was that all about? Where was the beef?
And through it all, Hillary Clinton received most of the blame, especially for putting her apparently uninvolved husband at great risk, even imperiling his presidency. But blame for what? After seven years of investigation by Republicans in Congress and two independent counsels, $60 million of taxpayer funds, thousands of inflammatory headlines, Senate and House televised hearings and investigations, including a Senate special committee on Whitewater, which involved 300 hours of hearings and more than 60 sessions over 13 months and 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people—at the end of the day, what was the verdict on Bill and Hillary Clinton and Whitewater?
Nothing. The final report of the last independent counsel, Robert Ray (who succeeded Kenneth Starr), in 2000, stated that there was “insufficient evidence” to bring any charges against Bill or Hillary Clinton regarding Whitewater.
So what lessons did Hillary Clinton learn during Whitewater about dealing with a mainstream media driven by or acting in parallel with a right-wing Republican complex feeding on and reinforcing each other? Two important moments stand out about how to handle the media when the facts get lost in the hurricane-force winds of reporters smelling controversy and scandal, even when there are no facts to support any charge of illegal conduct.
First, on April 22, 1994, after Hillary Clinton became the focal point of media interest and innuendo about “wrongdoing” in Whitewater, she took the advice of all her political and media advisers to follow the classic crisis management strategy: Get out in front and be 100 percent accessible and answer all questions. She sat in an armchair under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in the State Dining Room of the White House. For more than an hour, on live television, wearing a pink jacket (and thus known thereafter as the “pink press conference”), she answered all questions—constructive, mean-spirited, and everything in between. Facts, facts, facts. That is all she did.
In May 2015, twenty-one years later, Time magazine’s Michael Duffy wrote a piece recalling the pink press conference. Duffy was no easy reporter when it came to coverage of the Clintons—far from it. But this is what he remembered, and it was accurate, reflecting the reactions of everyone who watched her on live TV and most of the gathered White House press corps: “What happened was a riveting hour and 12 minutes in which the First Lady appeared to be open, candid, but above all unflappable. While she provided little new information on the tangled Arkansas land deal or her controversial commodity trades, the real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language, which was seen live on four networks, immediately drew approving reviews.”
(The same could be said for Secretary of State Clinton’s appearance—for eleven hours!—before Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015. She won the day and got the same rave reviews for her poise and focus on the facts under grilling by the sometimes frantic Gowdy and his fellow frustrated, partisan Republican colleagues.)
So during Whitewater she took the political crisis management advice and thought she had succeeded. And what happened? Nothing. That’s right, nothing changed. Indeed, the coverage on Whitewater and the focus on her as the evildoer and potential criminal cover-up artist got worse. It got so bad that, two years later, for the first time in U.S. history, a first lady was called before a grand jury to testify. Not only called but in fact forced by what seemed to be an overzealous group of Whitewater prosecutors to do the public “perp walk” that prosecutors like to put prominent Wall Street investment bankers through when they are arrested and handcuffed, with TV cameras and the media prompted to come and record the walk for ultimate humiliation. It didn’t matter that Hillary Clinton was the nation’s first lady, and she should have been given greater courtesy, if only out of respect for the office of the presidency.
So perhaps it was logical for her to conclude that no matter how she “handled” a controversial media story about anything she did, including admitting an honest mistake, once there was any hint of “scandal,” however unfounded, perhaps feeding the “beast” of the media horde would only make matters worse.
Then came her 2007–2008 presidential campaign. It was expected that as the front-runner and overwhelming consensus candidate to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, Clinton would be the target of the toughest and most critical media coverage. But in this instance, the piling on of any Hillary Clinton mistake was so egregious, so obviously a gang-up by both the media and all the other candidates, especially during the televised debates, that it was beyond anything experienced by other (male) front-runners.
Now she encountered a few Clinton critics among certain journalists and columnists who were generally considered “liberal” but whose venom and hatred toward Bill and Hillary bordered on the pathological. The one who took first place in this category by a large margin was the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Her anti-Hillary rants and personal attacks on Clinton sometimes suggested she was bitter and angry out of sheer envy. And then there was the unforgettable moment in 2007 that defined what Clinton was up against when Chris Matthews, an extremely bright and politically savvy TV commentator for MSNBC, lost any semblance of political balance in his comments about Barack Obama after a particularly compelling speech at a key moment of the presidential nomination battle. On Super Tuesday, March 28, 2008, in which Obama had fought Clinton to a virtual tie among the states that had voted, Matthews described Obama’s televised speech as “the best speech I’ve ever heard . . . and I’m tearing up . . .” Then he compared Obama—I am not making this up—to Jesus, or close to it: “I’ve been following politics since I was about five,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.”
And if that wasn’t over the top enough, Matthews went even further, apparently without embarrassment: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. I felt this thrill going up my leg.”
That thrill-going-up-my-leg moment—and not to blame Matthews, whose emotional and political attraction to the truly inspirational Barack Obama was genuine—was a symbol of what Hillary Clinton had grown accustomed to from those covering the campaign. If she made a simple slip or error, everyone jumped all over her, virtually the entire press corps, talking heads, and most political reporters. But when it came to judging her compared to Barack Obama, the effort was hopeless—although it must be said that in Obama, she was running against an orator and inspirational figure who was truly the political phenomenon of our time.
But it’s hard to imagine any human not becoming somewhat defensive and restrained in the face of such a combination of intense media hostility and the magical positive media that Barack Obama so often received (and deservedly so) during that campaign.
So from her days as spouse of a governor, to her days as first lady, to her days as a presidential candidate in 2008, and all the days in between, Hillary Clinton knew that she was always going to be the object of negative media because that is the way it was, and she had better get used to it. The only two exceptions to that rule were when she served in the Sena
te, where she was one of the most popular Democratic senators—among Republican as well as Democratic colleagues (West Virginia Democratic senator Robert Byrd referred to her as “a workhorse, not a show horse”); and when she served as Obama’s secretary of state, when her popularity ratings soared into the 60s and 70s, with relatively high approval ratings even among grassroots Republicans. In both of these jobs, hard work and facts were more important than perceptions and caricatures created by a cynical media, fed by partisan right-wing haters.
So this is the life experience in public service that shaped Hillary Clinton’s judgment of how to handle a negative press story that had the potential to spread into scandal mania: Be cautious and assume that “feeding the beast” might turn what would otherwise be a passing controversy into a negative story that never goes away.
* * *
With all this in mind, we turn to the question of Clinton’s emails while she was secretary of state. The story begins with a plain fact: Hillary Clinton loved her BlackBerry.
She used it to stay in touch with the thousands of friends to whom she had remained close since grade school, high school, college, law school, and all the public service and political years as first lady of Arkansas and of the United States, and as a senator. Her friends grew accustomed to shooting her quick personal notes, passing along jokes, and commenting on serious issues, receiving amazingly prompt and often funny or interesting or erudite responses, often within a matter of minutes or hours, no matter how busy she was.
There may have been an evening in December 2008 or January 2009, after Hillary Clinton had been named by President-elect Barack Obama to be his secretary of state, that she and some senior aides discussed whether it mattered if she used one BlackBerry as she always had to communicate with her friends while also communicating as secretary of state, or whether she needed to carry one for personal messages and another for official State Department business. Like almost every other member of Congress, she had come to rely for convenience on a single BlackBerry rather than two.
The Unmaking of the President 2016 Page 1