David Goldman/AP Photo
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
AP Photo
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
John Locher/AP Photo
Rick Wilking-Pool/Getty Images
Michael Bocchieri/Getty Images
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Getty Images
Rick T. Wilking/AP
Getty Images
Win McNamee/Getty Images
David Goldman/AP Photo
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Rick Wilking - Pool/Getty Images
RICK WILKING/REUTERS
KEVIN LAMARQUE/Reuters
John Locher/AP Photo
RALF-FINN HESTOFT/AP Photo
JIM YOUNG/Reuters
Joe Raedle via AP
PAUL J. RICHARDS/Getty Images
ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
Reuters
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
MIKE SEGAR/Reuters
JEWEL SAMAD/Getty Images
RICK WILKING/Getty Images
Julio Cortez/AP
RICK WILKING/Reuters
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Doug Mills/AP Photo
David Goldman/AP Photo
ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Evan Vucci/AP
CARLOS BARRIA/Reuters
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
AP Photo
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
JOE RAEDLE/Getty Images
JIM YOUNG/Reuters
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Julio Cortez/AP Photo
MANDEL NGAN/Getty Images
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Joe Raedle via AP
MANDEL NGAN/Getty Images
SHARON FARMER/AP
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
John Raoux/AP Photo
MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS
Jim Bourg-Pool/Getty Images
JOE RAEDLE/Getty Images
Mary Altaffer/AP Photo
John Lamparski/WireImage
Julio Cortez/AP Photo
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
MARK RALSTON/Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
AP Photo
ROBERTO SCHMIDT/Getty Images
William Regan/AP Photo
Win McNamee/Getty Images
STEPHAN SAVOIA/AP Photo
BRIAN SNYDER/Reuters
Jim Bourg-Pool/Getty Images
MANDEL NGAN/Getty Images
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
John Locher/AP Photo
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
JOE RAEDLE/Getty Images
LARRY DOWNING/Reuters
Getty Images
ROBERT F. BUKATY/Getty Images
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
RICK WILKING/Getty Images
LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Patrick Semansky/AP Photo
STEPHEN JAFFE/Getty Images
Joe Raedle via AP
Reuters
KEVIN LAMARQUE/Reuters
Matt Rourke/AP Photo
Getty Images
New York Daily News Archive
PAUL J. RICHARDS/Getty Images
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
REUTERS
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Win McNamee/Getty Images
SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
Brendan Smialowski/AP Photo
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
David Goldman/AP Photo
Getty Images
SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
David Goldman/AP Photo
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
David Goldman/AP Photo
JIM YOUNG/Reuters
ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
DOUG MILLS/AP Photo
Julio Cortez/AP Photo
DANNY JOHNSTON/AP Photo
John Locher/AP Photo
JOE RAEDLE/Getty Images
STEPHEN JAFFE/Getty Images
KEITH BEDFORD/Reuters
Matt York/AP Photo
Patrick Semansky/AP Photo
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Getty Images
Charles Bennett/AP Photo
Jim Bourg/AP
David Goldman/AP Photo
JIM YOUNG/Reuters
JOHN MOTTERN/AFP/Getty Images
LUKE FRAZZA/Getty Images
DONALD R. BROYLES/AP Photo
JIM YOUNG/Reuters
John Locher/AP Photo
MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images
PAUL J. RICHARDS/Getty Images
Scott Eisen/Getty Images
The case against Hillary Clinton could have been written before the recent WikiLeaks and FBI disclosures. But these documents do provide hard textual backup.
The most sensational disclosure was the proposed deal between the State Department and the FBI in which the FBI would declassify a Hillary Clinton email and State would give the FBI more slots in overseas stations. What made it sensational was the rare appearance in an official account of the phrase “quid pro quo,” which is the currently agreed-upon dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable corruption.
This is nonetheless an odd choice for most egregious offense. First, it occurred several layers removed from the campaign and from Clinton. It involved a career State Department official (he occupied the same position under Condoleezza Rice) covering not just for Clinton but for his own department.
Second, it’s not clear which side originally offered the bargain. Third, nothing tangible was supposed to exchange hands. There was no proposed personal enrichment — a Rolex in return for your soul — which tends to be our standard for punishable misconduct.
And finally, it never actually happened. The FBI turned down the declassification request.
In sum, a warm gun but nonsmoking. Indeed, if the phrase “quid pro quo” hadn’t appeared, it would have received little attention. Moreover, it obscures the real scandal — the bottomless cynicism of the campaign and of the candidate.
Among dozens of examples, the Qatari gambit. Qatar, one of the worst actors in the Middle East (having financially supported the Islamic State, for example), offered $1 million as a “birthday” gift to Bill Clinton in return for five minutes of his time. Who offers — who takes — $200,000 a minute? We don’t know the “quid” here, but it’s got to be big.
In the final debate, Clinton ran and hid when asked about pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. And for good reason. The emails reveal how foundation donors were first in line for favors and contracts.
A governance review by an outside law firm reported that some donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.” You need an outside law firm to tell you that? If your Sultanic heart bleeds for Haiti, why not give to Haiti directly? Because if you give through the Clintons, you have a claim on future favors.
The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job? Asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?”
It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the embarrassing about-face on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade.
So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank. As she told a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was “a need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.”
Giving the appearance that something had to be done. That’s not why Elizabeth Warren supported Dodd-Frank. Which is the difference between a conviction politician like Warren and a calculating machine like Clinton.
Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn’t seen it so clearly laid out. Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.
I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.
A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.
The only question is whose name I’m going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I’m down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com