Ruth Marcus: Escalating E-Mail Investigation ‘Good News’ for Hillary

March 3rd, 2016 4:24 PM

Appearing during MSNBC’s 12 p.m. ET hour on Thursday, liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus followed Hillary Clinton’s campaign talking points to the letter by laughably declaring the escalating investigation into the e-mail scandal was somehow “good news” for the Democratic frontrunner.

Host Andrea Mitchell observed: “They have to question her [Hillary Clinton]. They can't shut this down without asking her questions.” Marcus replied: “You want to build your case or not case, but you want to proceed methodically from the ground up and that's why it's important and actually good news for the Clinton campaign that this lower level person is being given immunity. That removes a barrier, he can now be questioned.”

Marcus added: “I continue to be very, very skeptical of the notion, at the end of the day – whether or not there are arguments about mishandling and less than perfect handling of classified information – about whether there is a criminal case here....I just don't think that the evidence here suggests that.”

Mitchell pressed: “What about improper securing of the e-mail system?”

Marcus argued:

...if somebody were still in the government, whether they would be sanctioned, whether they would be reprimanded for doing something....Lose their security clearance, that's one thing. But appropriately – this is not a partisan or ideological thing – when you’re talking about criminal prosecutions of people, you are talking about, you know, potentially sending them to prison, affecting their livelihoods, you want to have a higher standard, and that higher standard is some kind of knowing misconduct.

It’s not like a President of the United States would need to be trusted with a security clearance.

Tell the Truth 2016

Mitchell turned to NBC senior political editor Mark Murray and worried: “...the political ramifications, though, when she is questioned, and I have no doubt she will be questioned before they, if they do shut this down, this is a political bombshell at this stage in the nomination process.”

Murray directly contradicted Marcus: “Yeah, every time this story comes up, Andrea, it's never good news...they don't want to be talking about the e-mails...”

Here is a full transcript of the March 3 exchange:

12:41 PM ET

(...)

ANDREA MITCHELL: Now, Ruth, I wanted to ask you, as the Harvard lawyer that I know you are, and someone who’s –

RUTH MARCUS [WASHINGTON POST]: Don't embarrass me there, Andrea.

MITCHELL: And someone who knows a lot about the e-mail issue and what the vulnerabilities may be. A lot has been written and said about what this could be, what it isn't. Brian Fallon, just on, said, “We’re pleased and we’ve offered to testify.” Clearly they have to interview her. There's no question, they can't – coming from this administration, no matter what you think about James Comey, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, they’ve both said that they are going to be in charge of how this is handled at that level. She's a former cabinet secretary, if she weren't the Republican – the Democratic frontrunner, excuse me. They have to question her. They can't shut this down without asking her questions.

MARCUS: You would think that they would want to question her but they would not want to question her at the start. You want to build your case or not case, but you want to proceed methodically from the ground up and that's why it's important and actually good news for the Clinton campaign that this lower level person is being given immunity. That removes a barrier, he can now be questioned. You move up, you question.

I continue to be very, very skeptical of the notion, at the end of the day – whether or not there are arguments about mishandling and less than perfect handling of classified information – about whether there is a criminal case here. Because the bars to a criminal case are very high and the precedents suggest that where criminal prosecution is involved, you have knowing transmission of classified information and knowing misuse and mishandling of classified information and I just don't think that the evidence here suggests that.
    
MITCHELL: What about improper securing of the e-mail system?

MARCUS: Again, whether there is, you know, if somebody were still in the government, whether they would be sanctioned, whether they would be reprimanded for doing something –  

MITCHELL: Lose their security clearance.

MARCUS: Lose their security clearance, that's one thing. But appropriately – this is not a partisan or ideological thing – when you’re talking about criminal prosecutions of people, you are talking about, you know, potentially sending them to prison, affecting their livelihoods, you want to have a higher standard, and that higher standard is some kind of knowing misconduct.

MITCHELL: Mark Murray, the political ramifications, though, when she is questioned, and I have no doubt she will be questioned before they, if they do shut this down, this is a political bombshell at this stage in the nomination process.

MARK MURRAY: Yeah, every time this story comes up, Andrea, it's never good news, whether this was in March of 2015 or now March of 2016, they don't want to be talking about the e-mails, as Bernie Sanders often put it. But here's really, I think, to me, the biggest test is the FBI at some point has to either give her a clean bill of health or there have to be charges. And I think the Clinton campaign, you heard this from Brian Fallon in your interview, he’s like, “We’re hoping that they have some resolution come May.” But you know, it would be an amazing outcome, almost as amazing as Mitt Romney today beating up on Donald Trump, for there still to be this FBI probe, whatever you want to call it, still hanging over what looks to be the person who’s going to be the Democratic nominee.

MITCHELL: Thanks very much, Mark Murray and Ruth Marcus.