On Wednesday's New Day, CNN political commentator Errol Louis dismissed Republicans who wish to further pursue the Hillary Clinton email server scandal as "partisans," and ended up warning that it would be a "huge" and "Benghazi-like mistake" for them to do so, as he asserted that "this is always the trap that Clinton's opponents fall into, is that they sort of overstate it."
At about 6:20 a.m. ET, CNN co-host Alisyn Camerota brought up some of FBI Director James Comey's sharp criticism of Clinton's handling of her work emails -- some of which were classified. She then turned to Louis and asked about "political fallout." Louis began by being dismissive toward Republican "partisans" accusing Clinton of lying:
Well, political fallout based on what he said. I think, even within minutes, I remember just hearing people just yesterday people converted that into "she lied." People converted that into -- the partisans -- have taken what Director Comey said and said that this was intentional that she did this and she did that, and they start piling on reasons why and so forth. What it suggests to me is that people who don't want to be convinced, who cannot be convinced, are going to take what they want from Director Comey's statement and sort of run with it. And that applies to both sides.
Camerota jumped in to push back:
I mean, you say "partisans," but wasn't she dishonest about some of the things? I mean, he went through the points where she said one thing publicly, and they found something else privately.
Louis then talked up the idea that Clinton might not really have lied in her statements that were inconsistent with investigation findings:
Well, that's right. I mean, look, there's a difference between what she said and what he said. When she said, "I never sent or received anything that was previously marked as 'secret' or 'top secret,'" well, he said yesterday that's not true. And so you have to make a decision. And here again, the partisans and the nonpartisans will arrive at different conclusions. Was she being inaccurate? Or was she being knowingly deceptive? And it's not even close with Trump. I mean, Trump has said she lied, it's rigged, it's a setup, it's a bribe, it's all of this kind of stuff. But the objective facts that the director laid out don't really suggest that.
After Camerota and co-host Chris Cuomo debated whether Clinton's "carelessness" or "negligence" qualified as being illegal, Louis again faulted Clinton's Republican opponents as he continued:
Well, as always, this is always the trap that Clinton's opponents fall into, is that they sort of overstate it. It's not as if she got a clean bill of health yesterday. Director Comey -- who himself used to be a prosecutor -- is a pretty serious guy. He's tough as nails. He was appointed by the Bush administration. He is not a partisan in any way, shape, or form. He has a 10-year appointment specifically so that, as FBI director, he survives any given administration. So he, I think, was pretty rough on her, and, instead of just taking it as it is and just moving on to some other issue, you have people saying, "Well, now we're going to investigate -- we're going to turn on the FBI director."
Moments later, after agreeing with Cuomo that Comey could have pushed to indict Clinton if he had wanted to, Louis added:
On the other hand, as he said, if you can't make it stick, there's no point to doing it, and, you know, it's a bitter pill to swallow, I think, politically for a lot of the Republicans. I think they are making a huge mistake -- a Benghazi-like mistake -- by seizing on this and trying to make this the issue of the fall campaign. Every poll we've seen suggests it is not going to be the issue of the fall campaign.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, July 6, New Day on CNN:
6:20 a.m. ET
ALISYN CAMEROTA: So the FBI director -- Comey -- did not recommend any charges, but he also did not say that Hillary Clinton was not culpable of a series of problems. So let me just play the most damning part of Comey's statement for you.
JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
CAMEROTA: Political fallout?ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, political fallout based on what he said. I think, even within minutes, I remember just hearing people just yesterday people converted that into "she lied." People converted that into -- the partisans -- have taken what Director Comey said and said that this was intentional that she did this and she did that, and they start piling on reasons why and so forth. What it suggests to me is that people who don't want to be convinced, who cannot be convinced, are going to take what they want from Director Comey's statement and sort of run with it. And that applies to both sides.
CAMEROTA: I mean, you say "partisans," but wasn't she dishonest about some of the things? I mean, he went through the points where she said one thing publicly, and they found something else privately.
LOUIS: Well, that's right. I mean, look, there's a difference between what she said and what he said. When she said, "I never sent or received anything that was previously marked as 'secret' or 'top secret,'" well, he said yesterday that's not true. And so you have to make a decision. And here again, the partisans and the nonpartisans will arrive at different conclusions. Was she being inaccurate? Or was she being knowingly deceptive? And it's not even close with Trump. I mean, Trump has said she lied, it's rigged, it's a setup, it's a bribe, it's all of this kind of stuff. But the objective facts that the director laid out don't really suggest that.
CHRIS CUOMO: Well, they don't suggest, Alex, a crime, right? I mean, you know, what's the fallout? The fallout is going to be bad for this because everybody thinks that she committed a crime. Now, she can say, "Well, look at what the FBI said." And he's going to say, "Well, there were things that were done wrong." Why did Comey say that? Why didn't he just stick to making the case? Because I think this was very frustrating for him. She didn't ask for permission. She said she did ask for permission. There was a whole list of things. Do you think this winds up going to the bucket of "This is what they do," that baseline criticism of how the Clintons take care of themselves first?
[ALEX BURNS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST]
(...)
CHRIS CUOMO: Carelessness is not a criminal standard at all, let alone applicable to the statutes in this case. So they'll play politics with him -- he's not the right (inaudible)-
ALISYN CAMEROTA: Yeah, but they're saying, they're saying what's the difference -- define the difference between "extreme carelessness" and "negligence." What's the difference?
CUOMO: Yeah, and he will. Negligence isn't the standard either. He's looking for criminality here. He's going to have to find a level of negligence that rises to criminal responsibility and proof of it that he could make a case and win.
CAMEROTA: So they want him to explain that.
CUOMO: That's not as easy, if that's the easy part of the analysis. The hard part of the analysis is: How do I feel about your carelessness? That's what we're seeing with Trump, who doubles down and says it's bribery and he plays hyperbole with it. That's his prerogative to do, but did he do her a favor by pushing it too far?
ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, as always, this is always the trap that Clinton's opponents fall into, is that they sort of overstate it. It's not as if she got a clean bill of health yesterday. Director Comey -- who himself used to be a prosecutor -- is a pretty serious guy. He's tough as nails. He was appointed by the Bush administration. He is not a partisan in any way, shape, or form. He has a 10-year appointment specifically so that, as FBI director, he survives any given administration. So he, I think, was pretty rough on her, and, instead of just taking it as it is and just moving on to some other issue, you have people saying, "Well, now we're going to investigate -- we're going to turn on the FBI director."
CUOMO: Well, he could have charged. He could have charged. If he wanted to be really rough, he could have charged. Indictment is -- we all know the ham sandwich line.
LOUIS: Frankly -- I was going to say -- I was a little surprised just from the sense that this is what prosecutors do. This is a lifelong prosecutor, not just an FBI director, and, so, you know, it's the hammer that they usually like to pound people with. On the other hand, as he said, if you can't make it stick, there's no point to doing it, and, you know, it's a bitter pill to swallow, I think, politically for a lot of the Republicans. I think they are making a huge mistake -- a Benghazi-like mistake -- by seizing on this and trying to make this the issue of the fall campaign. Every poll we've seen suggests it is not going to be the issue of the fall campaign.
