Hillary May be Immune, But the Rule of Law is Alive for America’s Poor

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend any criminal charges against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for her “extremely careless” handling of classified emails over a private server. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey stated.

The FBI’s failure to recommend charges against Clinton has led many on the political right to declare that the Rule of Law is dead in America, and that political elites have the power to escape significant prosecution. “This is a loss for the rule of law and further degrades Americans’ faith in the justice system,” Senator Rand Paul wrote on his Facebook page. Such a  sentiment has been echoed by many other Republican politicians, including countless other senators and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

While Republicans are right that the Justice Department’s unwillingness to indict Clinton for gross misconduct is abhorrent, their statement that “the Rule of Law is dead in America” is an incomplete thought. Like many other political aphorisms, it trades depth for the ability to be placed on a bumper sticker. The Rule of Law may be dead for people like Hillary Clinton. But for many Americans, the possibility of facing severe punishment for a non-violent crime remains incredibly high.

First, let us set the record straight. No “reasonable prosecutor” would have a problem with an indictment against Clinton. Comey’s announcement was littered with evidence of wrongdoing that undoubtedly merited further legal proceedings. No level-headed commentator is outright calling for Mrs. Clinton’s conviction based on the evidence we have now. But, an indictment is nothing more than a formal accusation that would send the question to a grand jury to decide if a trial is necessary. Based on the evidence, that process should have at least proceeded.

But it did not.

Hillary Clinton is a member of the political class. A member of the political class who also just-so-happens to be the next likely president of the United States. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not enjoy such a privileged position.

For poor people and minorities in this country, the punishments for breaking the law are all too real and often excessive. While political elites may escape significant consequences, the have-nots and outcasts are often ensnared in a legal system where guilty pleas are incentivized and harsh mandatory minimums are enforced with draconian vigor.

Ironically, many lower-class people are spending life in prison thanks to federal “tough on crime” legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton and supported by Hillary. To this day, former-President Clinton defends his action and drug legislation when questioned at Hillary campaign events.

Clinton’s 1994 omnibus crime bill included the federal “three strikes” provision, mandating life sentences for criminals convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes.

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), “These inflexible, ‘one-size-fits-all’ sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses.” FAMM’s assertions are backed up by sound evidence, and there is a growing consensus that the laws have caused America’s incarceration rate to reach number one in the world.

Even more egregiously, those convicted are disproportionately African-American males, a fact fleshed out by Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow. 

“In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. So we don’t,” she wrote. “Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color criminals and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind.”

While many poor citizens are sitting behind bars for victimless drug crimes, Hillary is without so much as a court date. That is not progressivism; that is elitism and the true definition of privilege that liberals constantly rail against. This is the sort of favoritism the founders  warned against when they wrote “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,” in the very first article of the Constitution.

In this case – as in many others – liberals are hypocrites, favoring the privilege of a wealthy powerful person when it suits their political goals. It is as disgusting an application of Machiavellian ethics as I have ever seen.

So, please: spare me the social justice warrior spiel. It is very hard to take liberals seriously when they defend situations such as this.