In January, Robert F. McDonnell, 71st governor of Virginia, was sentenced to two years in prison followed by two years of supervised release after his conviction on eleven counts of public corruption. He, and especially his wife, behaved badly. But it’s worth taking a closer look at what was considered criminal in McDonnell’s case, because, at least so far, some in the press are suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s conduct must meet a much higher threshold to be considered problematic.
When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewed Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, on Sunday, Stephanopoulos played the informal role of Clinton defense attorney. Skipping right over the truly squalid appearance of conflict of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation accepting contributions from nations and firms having business before the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, Stephanopoulos focused only on law-breaking. “Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed?” he demanded. When Schweizer said he thought the material he, the New York Times, and others unearthed certainly merited further investigation, Stephanopoulos jumped on it: “But a criminal investigation? . . . Is there a smoking gun?”
When it comes to the Clintons, the standard is not, “Are we looking at behavior that is so malodorous, so clearly lacking in integrity, that voters should be invited to consider it when casting their ballots?” but rather, “Can you show us the ‘smoking gun?’” Actually, even then — remember the blue dress? — the evidence may not be considered dispositive.
Schweizer mentioned the case of Robert McDonnell, which began not with a “smoking gun” but with press stories about improper spending at the governor’s mansion. A federal prosecutor then began a criminal investigation and discovered that the McDonnell family had accepted up to $177,000 in gifts and loans from a businessman named Jonnie Williams. Mrs. McDonnell got a New York shopping trip, a trip to Cape Cod, and more. The governor got a flight to the Final Four, a Rolex watch, golfing trips, dinner at an expensive restaurant, and some other things. Williams contributed $15,000 toward the catering expenses for McDonnell’s daughter’s wedding. All very smarmy — it’s not surprising that a jury found him guilty.
But on the matter of quid pro quo, prosecutors never actually proved that McDonnell had taken government action on Williams’s behalf.
The McDonnell’s were convicted on the appearance of improper action more than any actual acts. But Hillary Clinton is facing some serious questions about how much the money given to the Clinton Foundation genuinely impacted State Department decisions in favor of those donors – a legitimate quid pro quo that would fall under honest services fraud if the Department of Justice used even a similar yard stick when measuring the case compared to the McDonnells.
The media and Democrats were all to eager to spend a year convicting the McDonnells in the court of public opinion (during an election year to boot). Will they breathlessly dog Hillary Clinton the same way?
