Mark Penn, former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, heavily criticized Robert Mueller’s special counsel on “Fox & Friends” Friday.
According to Penn, there is a giant double standard between Mueller’s special counsel and the investigations into Clinton’s private email server.
“Look, I think everybody sees that a double standard occurred here. That the investigations related to the emails were handled with kid gloves,” he said.
“And the investigations related to Trump, you know, handled with, let’s say all-out prosecutorial force of government and deep state might. And everybody sees how these two things were handled differently,” Penn continued.
Watch the video below:
When asked why that may be, Penn said he doesn’t know the motivations, but double standard has real relevance to the political landscape.
“I don’t care if they would have given them both light treatments but to give one, particularly the newly elected president from day one, this kind of scrutiny of all his campaign aides, of all his associates and basically looking for crimes so that they could flip them,” he added.
— Mark Penn (@Mark_Penn) August 24, 2018
In an op-ed for The Hill, Penn explain how “Cohen’s plea deal is prosecutor’s attempt to set up Trump”:
Here we go, from Russia with love, to campaign finance with love.
Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the Paul Manafort bin reserved by the special counsel for squeezing until the juice comes out. We are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes.
“Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form, despite crystal clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed,” Penn wrote.