Clinton Hillary Rodham - The unmaking of the president 2016: how FBI Director James Comey cost Hillary Clinton the presidency

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.

To Carolyn Atwell-Davis wife, partner, friend, critic, always there through thick and thin

Imagine how history would judge todays 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. Clintons wrongs and Mr. Trumps 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

H illary 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 Clintons emails. This strange and surprising news mere days before the election eroded Clintons 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 Clintons campaign flaws or Trumps 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. postOctober 28 election poll data indicates that Hillary Clinton would have won the election had Comey not sent the letter.

Indeed, the assertion that Comeys letter cost Clinton the election has become more widely accepted, especiallyironicallyafter 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 eventsmany widely known but others comprehended by only a fewthat 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, Trumps 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 impairedby James Comeyand the stakes for Americas future could not be higher.

A ny 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 lifebeginning as the spouse of a six-term governor in 1978, her experience as first lady in the White House over two terms of Bill Clintons presidency, then as a senator from New York, as a presidential candidate in 2008, and as secretary of state before her 2016 campaignshe 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 doesnt 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 Clintons public life that offer insight into her and her campaigns 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 didnt 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 repaying the IRS, plus interest, for the value of that deduction.

That was the entire Whitewater storyand it didnt 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 nations three major newspapersthe New York Times , the Washington Post , and the Wall Street Journal as well as the breathless reporting every night on the major TV news programsleaves even an objective observer with the inevitable takeaway: What was that all about? Where was the beef?