After a year-long investigation, FBI Director James Comey deemed HillaryClinton and her staff’s use of her email account as “extremely careless,” but essentially not criminal. After many months of investigation, Comey said that the FBI has concluded that “no charges are appropriate.” He also said that he believed that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey’s announcement pretty much guarantees that formal charges from the DOJ will not be pursued.
Okay, so Hillary isn’t going to jail, because, well, there’s no evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Not that it matters because, of course, many of you find comfort in conspiracy theories. In fact, many believe that Clinton is linked to the deaths of Tupac, Biggie, and Jon Benet Ramsey. But meanwhile, Donald Trump is being sued by a woman for allegedly raping her when she was 13, and it’s hardly mentioned in the media.
Oh, that’s right! Trump isn’t Black, nor did he ever try to buy NBC. Nope, he’s just a wealthy man running for president so allegations of rape aren’t important. Yep, no sexism or racist double standard here.
Listen to a short version of Comey’s announcement below:
Comey said Hillary Clinton and staff were “extremely careless,” in their use of a private email server. However, there’s no evidence to warrant criminal prosecution. This might not make sense to some as it seems that an indictment should be the investigation’s natural conclusion.
Because, well, if your name is Bill or Hillary Clinton you’ve committed every crime on the books between Arkansas and Washington D.C.
The FBI Knows Bullshit When It Sees It
Well, driving down the street with a hot cup of coffee between your legs is also “extremely careless.” However, it’s hardly a crime. Careless? Yes. Extremely careless? Damn right. Now, think about the last time someone went to jail for driving with a hot cup of coffee in their lap. Has that ever happened? No. Will it ever happen? Probably not ever.
Now, if you do the extremely careless act of driving with a hot cup of coffee in your crotch. Let’s say you do that and because of a scorched genital area you have a wreck. Yes, and let’s say your wreck results in the death of someone other than yourself. While unfortunate for all involved, legally what occurred amounts to negligent homicide, at the least.
Okay, so let’s bring it back to Clinton. Did Clinton’s extremely reckless use of her email account compromise national security? Meh. What I do know is that according to Comey, there’s no evidence that Clinton’s email server was hacked. So, sorry, but there’s no there, there. None. Nothing. Nada!
But, of course, you can’t tell that to Republicans with their thirty-year Clinton witch hunt. Nor can you explain any of this to the remaining six supporters of Bernie Sanders still holding out in hope that Clinton would be indicted. You know, because the game is rigged. Sorry, wrong again.
Here’s A Better Explanation
Back in April, in POLITICO, Josh Gerstein foreshadowed the FBI’s recommendation with a report that showed a marked difference between Clinton’s case, and other cases where mishandled information were prosecuted. As noted in the report, the difference was willful intent:
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
[…] A former senior FBI official told POLITICO that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases.
“If you look at the history of what they pursued, you really had to have a slam-bam case that met all the elements,” said the ex-official, who asked not to be named.
Statistics support the view that prosecutions in the area are sparing.
Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show.
[…]The Espionage Act makes it a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison to cause sensitive national security information to “be removed from its proper place of custody” as a result of “gross negligence.” Another law makes it a misdemeanor to remove classified “documents or material without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Still another makes it a felony to conceal or remove official federal government records.
Now, in the event that you think I’m way off base here. Do yourself a favor and check out the video below for a more professional explanation as to why the FBI Director recommended no indictment of Clinton. In the video below, former federal prosecutor James Melendres weighs in.