Posted with permission from Lifezette

An article in a British tabloid has put the Clinton machine back in the middle of the scandal-marred road where it's been for much of the last quarter-century.

The Daily Mail reported that Huma Abedin, a top aide and confidante to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, backed up State Department emails on the private laptop computer of her then-husband, disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner -- despite telling the FBI otherwise.

The new report is a nasty reminder of one of the chief reasons Clinton lost the 2016 election, despite overwhelming advantages and an opponent who inspired doubts from many American voters. In the end, many voters just did not trust or believe that Hillary Clinton was ethical or honest.

Reports like the one in The Daily Mail do nothing to alter that view.

It had Scott Bolden, former chairman of the District of Columbia Democratic Party, doing what Clinton supporters often do -- arguing legal distinctions. Abedin may not have told the truth to the FBI, Bolden told "The Ingraham Angle" guest host Jesse Watters on Monday -- but that does not fit the technical definition of perjury.

"I'm not concerned at all about her being charged with perjury because whatever her inconsistent statement was, it had no material effect on the outcome of the investigation, nor would the FBI go back, or DOJ go back, and take a look at that," he said.

Ned Ryun, who served as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, told "The Ingraham Angle" that the episode fuels the belief that the law normal people must follow doesn't apply to the Clintons.

"For them, it was a different set of rules," he said. "For them, really, the law was like a series of suggestions that they could either follow or not follow at their convenience."

Ryun contrasted the treatment of Abedin with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the investigation of allegations of collusion between Russian operatives and President Donald Trump's campaign during the election.

"We need to go back, fully conclude these investigations and really get to the bottom of it," he said. "Was it a pay-to-play scheme? Was the Clinton Foundation a slush fund? Why did the Uranium One deal take place?"

Ryun asked why Abedin and former Clinton State Department aide Cheryl Mills have not been charged with similar offenses.

"If they're not guilty, why is he guilty?" he asked.

Bolden said there are not multiple standards for the Clintons and everyone else. He fell back on the legal definition of perjury.

"There was no material difference or impact," he said, referring to Abedin's statements. "Whether you agree with that or not, that's what the law is."

Ryun called on the Justice Department to review a host of issues that former President Barack Obama's administration seemingly glossed over, from former high-ranking Justice Department official Bruce Ohr's role in the Russia investigation -- and his failure to disclose that his wife worked for the firm that hired the former British agent who compiled the infamous "Trump dossier" -- to the mercurial financing of the Clinton Foundation.

"We need to go back, fully conclude these investigations and really get to the bottom of it," he said. "Was it a pay-to-play scheme? Was the Clinton Foundation a slush fund? Why did the Uranium One deal take place?"

(photo credit, homepage image: , , by ; photo credit, article image: , , by )

PoliZette senior political writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at . Follow him on Twitter .