Posts
The definition of "extremely careless" is the same as "gross negligence" and whether or not she intended to give away America's secrets, including the names of CIA operatives in the field, gross negligence is all it takes for an indictment for everyone else but the Clintons.
Comey said that "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He's got it butt-backwards. There is enough evidence based on what was recovered and what was destroyed to merit an indictment.
Hillary's spokesgenderneutral windbag Brian Fallon issued a written statement:
"We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the Department is appropriate. As the Secretary has long said [he meant screeched] it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved."
Donald Trump, finger on the Tweet button said:
FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
I just wish Trump would have left off the "Wow."
Although Comey didn't recommend that the letter of the law be respected, he did say a few strong words about Hillary's stupid actions. It was at that moment when the nation may have believed he was going to recommend indictment, but that was just to throw us off. He probably made a deal with her that he would rebuke her if he got her off the hook.
So Comey said that the FBI found 110 emails sent or received on her private server that contained classified information. He mentioned that there were seven email chains at the "Top Secret/Special Access Program level." That level of secrecy could put CIA operatives in mortal danger because such emails often includes their name and other information.
He mentioned that it was possible that hostile actors to the United States had gained access to her personal email account.
"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."
Then Comey went on to say that "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
If that isn't blatant incompetence, stupidity, arrogance and grounds for her to drop out of the presidential race, then we might even one day see John Kerry running for president.The coincidences of this issue are legion. We have Loretta Lynch 'accidentally' running into Bill Clinton at the airport. We have an investigation that ended just before the Democratic National Convention. And we have Comey meeting with Hillary for three hours just days ago.
As far as the law is concerned, there is absolutely no reason not to indict Clinton. The public information alone is enough to indict her.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said that Comey's decision defied explanation and that "No one should be above the law."
Grow up, Paul--everyone knows that Hillary and Bill are above the law. She has every right to circumvent government systems to shield her daughter's wedding planning from the public, or to keep from inconveniencing herself from having to use a fancy government server.
C'mon, man, she's Hillary Rodham Clinton!
After long review, it was discovered that over 2,000 emails on her server had information now deemed classified, although they weren't marked that way at the time. But marking them such is irrelevant--she should know what's classified and if she didn't, that's more proof of her incompetence.
Comey took no questions from the press when he finished his statement. So he didn't have to answer questions like:
"You said Clinton's handling of top secret material by her and her aides was "extremely careless." Lawyers would agree that this is the same thing as "gross negligence," and that statute calls for prosecution of anyone who allows classified information to be mishandled, whether or not it falls into the wrong hands. So, what's the difference between the two terms and is there an actual legal difference?"Another question they would have likely asked:
"You said that some of the emails were marked classified when Hillary Clinton handled them. Isn't that the definition of "gross negligence" and shouldn't that mandate prosecution of those mishandling sensitive information?"Another:
"You mentioned that anyone in Hillary's position would have faced sanctions of some kind for their behavior. What sanctions have been used on the past and would you think that someone like Hillary Clinton would be granted a security clearance after such serious violations? If so, why is that?"More:
"What would you say to those who, prior to your decision, have been prosecuted for mishandling classified materials through gross negligence given you decision not to prosecute Hillary?"The final question I would like to ask:
"How is the other FBI investigation going that's looking at possible corruption involving the State Department and the Clinton Foundation? Did any of the emails recovered from her server have any bearing on the Clinton Foundation investigation? Do you think that investigation will be concluded before Americans vote for our next president?The amazing thing about our society of late is not just the level of corruption, but the level of acceptance of the corruption as long as it comes from the 'right' person.
The fix is in.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment