The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency . . . even as he sues the Justice Department.Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act.
So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.”
Here i disagree with McCarthy. He didn’t make a big enough stink about Comey’s verbal engineering.In this case,according to the law,intent is irrelevant. Besides, being extremely careless means you were grossly negligent. She committed [felonius] acts that other people were nailed to the wall for and Comey made a call he had no authority to make. How goofy could it have been when the case against Hillary was dropped because Comey said so? He declared her innocent. Beats me why the Dems were angry with him. People already knew what Hillary did. He’s the person that saved her butt so she could run for President.
The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction.
It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow.
Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful.
In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up.
Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it.
And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president.
No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.While Clinton’s mishandling of classified information got all the attention, it was just the tip of the felony iceberg.
Thousands of the 33,000 emails she withheld and undertook to “bleach bit” into oblivion related to State Department business.
It is a felony to misappropriate even a single government record. The destruction of the emails, moreover, occurred after a House Committee investigating the Benghazi massacre issued subpoenas and preservation directives to Clinton’s State Department and Clinton herself.
If Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the Mueller probe pit-bulls had half as solid an obstruction case against Donald Trump, the president would by now have been impeached, removed, and indicted.
And that dichotomy is the point, isn’t it?In the Obama Justice Department — as extended by the Mueller investigation, staffed by Obama Justice Department officials and other Clinton-friendly Democrats — justice was dispensed with a partisan eye.
If you were Hillary Clinton, you skated. If you were Donald Trump, they were determined to dig until they found something — and, even when they failed to make a case, the digging never stopped . . . it just shifted to Capitol Hill.