National Review Online
Tuesday, July 05, 2016
Hillary Clinton broke the law, but she should not be
charged with her crimes. That is the gist of FBI director James Comey’s surreal
Tuesday-morning press conference, in which he explained how on hundreds of
occasions Clinton and her support staff violated the law during and after her
tenure as secretary of state — but announced that the FBI, nonetheless, is not
recommending criminal charges.
Comey justified his decision on the grounds that the FBI
found no “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to
violate laws.” But the applicable law, 18 U.S.C. §793(f), does not call for
any. The standard is “gross negligence,” and Comey’s statement gives ample
evidence of that.
Of the 30,000 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State
Department in 2014, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained information that
was classified at the time the message was sent or received. Eight of those
chains contained information that was “Top Secret,” and seven contained
“Special Access” intelligence, the most sensitive classification available.
Messages containing classified information were also found among thousands of
e-mails not provided by Clinton’s lawyers — who, Comey reports, deleted e-mails
that were not in fact “personal” and “cleaned their devices in such a way as to
preclude complete forensic recovery.” It turns out, too, that Clinton set up
not just one but “several” personal servers during her time at State.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that Clinton’s
recklessness put national security at risk. According to Comey, the FBI knows
for certain that “hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail
accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her
personal account” and that she “used her personal e-mail extensively while
outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails
in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” And, says Comey, it’s entirely
possible that our enemies gained access to Clinton’s personal e-mail account,
since her use of one was “known by a large number of people and readily
apparent.” “Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should
have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the e-mails she was
sending and receiving, Comey said. “None of these e-mails should have been on
any kind of unclassified system.”
And yet, according to Comey, “no reasonable prosecutor”
would bring a case on the basis of the evidence above. If true, that’s a
damning indictment of prosecutors as a class.
Notably, though, “reasonable prosecutors” have brought
charges against persons accused of much less. U.S. Navy officer Kristian
Saucier faces ten years in prison for taking pictures of the engine room of his
submarine with his cell phone. Bryan Nishimura, a naval reservist who served in
Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, was fined and given two years of probation for
downloading classified military information to his personal device and taking
it back to his California home. And General David Petraeus received a $100,000
fine after he admitted sharing classified information with his mistress.
Given the weight of the evidence, it is clear that the
FBI director surrendered to the political pressure surrounding this case.
Although he was under no obligation to make a recommendation of any kind, Comey
not only made one that flies in the face of the evidence the FBI uncovered; he
rationalized this gratuitous recommendation by unilaterally rewriting the
applicable law. Comey conceded that Clinton’s conduct was “extremely careless,”
which tracks the statute’s requirement of proof of “gross negligence” — then
tried to overcome this inconvenience with his disquisition on Clinton’s lack of
intent to violate the law or harm the United States, which is wholly irrelevant
to a gross-negligence case. Moreover, he conspicuously avoided addressing why
Clinton had set up the secret servers; presumably, addressing that question
would have required admitting that Clinton was guilty even by his straw-man
“intent” standard.
Loretta Lynch is ultimately responsible for the decision
whether or not to prosecute, but the idea that she would buck the FBI’s
recommendation is risible. She will use it as an excuse to close the case and
shuffle the affair — including her shameful part in it — offstage, and the
Clinton campaign and its media allies will do the same, in the process
transforming Comey’s refusal to recommend charges into a full-throated exoneration
of wrongdoing.
At the time of the Petraeus scandal, the Obama
administration declared that it had “zero tolerance” for mishandling classified
information. Well, not quite “zero.”
No comments:
Post a Comment