The so-called Russian collusion scandal, one of the most divisive controversies in modern American politics, has long been framed as a tale of foreign interference in the 2016 election. But what if the real scandal was a deliberate deception orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and her campaign? Drawing from insights in Jonathan Turley’s recent analysis, the evidence suggests that Clinton’s role in promoting the Trump-Russia narrative was not just a political misstep but a calculated effort to manipulate public perception. Combined with her private email server scandal, these actions raise serious questions about whether she should face legal consequences for what some call the “greatest political con job” in history.
Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary of State remains a lightning rod for criticism. The FBI’s 2016 investigation revealed that she sent or received 110 emails containing classified information, with her team deleting thousands more deemed “personal.” The decision to bypass secure government systems was deemed “extremely careless” by then-FBI Director James Comey, yet he recommended no charges, citing insufficient evidence of criminal intent. Critics argue this was a clear double standard—lesser officials have faced prosecution for similar violations. The deletion of emails, some later recovered and found to contain work-related content, also fuels suspicions of obstruction. While the legal bar for charges under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is high, requiring proof of willful mishandling, the scandal eroded public trust and set the stage for the collusion narrative.
According to Turley, the Russian collusion narrative was not a spontaneous reaction to foreign hacking but a deliberate strategy by Clinton’s campaign to smear Donald Trump. Declassified documents from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation reveal that Clinton personally approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia, deflecting attention from her email scandal. This involved amplifying allegations of Russian hacking and funding the Steele dossier—a now-discredited document alleging ties between Trump and the Kremlin—through her campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS. Turley argues this was a “classic October surprise,” designed to sway voters by painting Trump as a Russian puppet.
The dossier’s unverified claims, peddled to the FBI and media, sparked a years-long investigation that cost taxpayers millions and found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Durham’s probe suggests the FBI mishandled the dossier, ignoring its questionable origins and failing to scrutinize Clinton’s role. Worse, Turley notes that Russian intelligence itself claimed Clinton orchestrated this narrative, a detail Durham’s report annexes highlight, though with caveats about potential disinformation. If true, this could implicate Clinton in a scheme to mislead federal authorities, potentially violating laws against false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) or campaign finance regulations, though proving intent remains challenging.
The case for charging Clinton hinges on accountability. The email server scandal showed a reckless disregard for national security and transparency, potentially endangering classified information. More damningly, the collusion narrative, as Turley describes, was a “political hit job” that weaponized federal institutions against a rival candidate. If Clinton knowingly pushed false allegations to the FBI, it could constitute fraud or obstruction, especially given the dossier’s role in triggering the Trump-Russia probe. The fact that her campaign hid its funding of the dossier behind layers of intermediaries only deepens suspicions of deceit. Allowing such actions to go unpunished risks normalizing political dirty tricks that undermine democracy.
Clinton’s defenders argue that both scandals have been overblown by partisan adversaries. On the email issue, they note that no evidence shows classified information was compromised, and private servers were used by other officials, like Colin Powell, without similar scrutiny. Comey’s conclusion of no criminal intent aligns with legal standards, and re-litigating the issue feels like political revenge. On the collusion narrative, supporters point out that Russia’s hacking of DNC emails—confirmed by U.S. intelligence—was real and targeted Clinton’s campaign, making her a victim, not a perpetrator. The Steele dossier, while flawed, was standard opposition research, and its impact on the FBI’s probe was minimal, as Mueller’s investigation predated its use. Critics of Durham’s probe, including some Senate Democrats, argue it selectively amplifies unverified claims to smear Clinton, echoing the very tactics it condemns.
Turley’s analysis paints a grim picture of a political system where powerful figures can manipulate narratives with impunity. The Russian collusion saga, in particular, diverted national attention, fueled division, and eroded trust in institutions. Even if Clinton’s actions don’t meet the strict legal threshold for charges—requiring clear evidence of intent—the ethical implications are undeniable. Her campaign’s role in pushing the dossier and the email scandal’s fallout contributed to a toxic political climate that continues to haunt us in 2025.
Should Hillary Clinton face charges? The email scandal, while reckless, likely falls short of criminality under current law. However, the Russian collusion narrative, as Turley argues, represents a more egregious abuse of power. If Durham’s findings hold, Clinton’s approval of a plan to smear Trump with unverified allegations could justify charges for misleading federal authorities or violating campaign laws. Yet, the lack of concrete evidence tying her directly to illegal acts makes prosecution unlikely. Still, the court of public opinion has already judged her, and the unraveling of this “con job” demands accountability—whether through legal means or the historical record. As we move forward, the focus should be on preventing such manipulations, ensuring no one is above the law, regardless of political stature.
Disclaimer: This op-ed represents the author’s opinion, based on Jonathan Turley’s analysis and available evidence, and does not reflect the views of Parler. It is not intended to endorse any political agenda.
About the Author
