Hillary Clinton: Too Connected to Jail

It was some days later that I got that lesson in how life works in the real world. The detective who handled the battery case was a woman whom I had trained when she was a rookie, and I asked her if the case had been filed with the city attorney’s office. It had not, she said, and she went on at some length with a nonsensical explanation of how the decision not to prosecute the woman had been reached. And as for the drunk-driving husband, I never received a court subpoena for his case, which I found odd as DUI cases were almost always good for at least one day of on-call court overtime.

I smelled a rat. I inquired further with another detective, who told me that the father of the woman who slapped me was friends with a high-ranking member of the LAPD, who had let it be known that he wanted to see the case dropped. And so it was, albeit with some legalistic rationale conjured up for the paperwork. And unless the woman’s husband pled guilty at arraignment, an exceedingly rare occurrence, it’s safe to assume his case was made to disappear as well.

The couple, you see, were connected, and despite their manifest guilt of the crimes alleged, they were immune to the consequences that would befall people in similar circumstances but whose father or father-in-law was not friends with a high-ranking member of the LAPD. I was advised by a trusted mentor to let it go, for I would be crushed like a bug if I raised a ruckus.

And by the way, the advantage of being connected was not lost on that detective who had lied to me about why the case was dropped, the one I had trained in her first assignment on the streets. She went on to become a high-ranking member of the LAPD herself, climbing the ladder with the help, one presumes, of the man whose daughter and son-in-law were granted a pass for their misdeeds.

As I said, I was reminded of this incident as I listened to FBI Director James Comey explain how it was that Hillary Clinton was clearly guilty of at least two violations of federal statutes but would nonetheless be spared from prosecution. We’ve heard much about Mr. Comey’s reputation for integrity, a reputation I acknowledge but with two caveats: 1), in Washington, D.C., it doesn’t take much integrity to be a standout, and 2), no one, and I mean absolutely no one, reaches Comey’s level in the federal bureaucracy, or any bureaucracy for that matter, without being known as a team player. So he did his part, sparing Mrs. Clinton from her turn in the dock for the sake of what in his judgment is the greater good. When it comes to being connected, no one can match the Clintons.

But in rendering his decision, Comey made a curious comment. After laying out in detail that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct in using her unsecured email server met the elements of two federal crimes, he said that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Andrew McCarthy, who formerly served as a prosecutor in the Justice Department and is “reasonable” by any definition of the word save for those favored by Mrs. Clinton’s acolytes, offers a dissenting opinion when he says Comey’s decision “makes no sense.”