By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, July 05, 2016
No reasonable person could possibly square what FBI
Director James Comey said about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail
system during her time as Secretary of State with his final recommendation.
On Tuesday, Comey spent 15 minutes meticulously detailing
every illegality of Clinton—including her negligent behavior and obstruction of
the investigation. And yet, at the end of it all, he offered the absurdly
counterintuitive position that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges
in such a case.
Well, everything the director said challenged that
conclusion. At one point, for example, Comey explained that any “reasonable
person should have known this was not an appropriate venue for classified
emails.” Only minutes before that,
Comey also said that “gross negligence” would suffice for prosecution. So is he
accusing the presidential candidate of being too dumb to comprehend what a top
secret document is or how an email account works? Because any other explanation
makes no sense.
According to the FBI, Clinton sent 110 emails containing
clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret
information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information.
Worse still, “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to
Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey explained.
There are few, if any, scenarios I can conceive of that
are more grossly negligent when it comes to classified documents than sending
them through an unsecured email account in a place where hostile actors can
access them. Perhaps Comey could offer the nation an example of what it takes
to be prosecuted. What if Hillary left a folder marked “top secret” in front of
the Chinese embassy in Russia? Would that do it? I doubt it.
Here’s another question that worth asking: Do
presidential candidates have to admit they intended to commit a crime for the
FBI to recommend the Justice Department prosecute? In the case of Clinton, it
seems so. The FBI doesn’t believe there was intentional misconduct on the part
of Clinton. Why did she ignore FOIA requests and fight Congress every step of
the way? Why did Hillary lie or mislead law enforcement and the public if it
was just an innocent mistake?
On March 1 of this year, Clinton alleged that she “never
sent any classified material — nor received any — marked classified.” This was
a lie. Hillary asserted that before becoming secretary she merely wanted only
one device “for convenience.” This was also lie. The FBI found that Clinton
“used numerous mobile devices”—not to mention servers. Any reasonable person
could ascertain she was attempting to evade the public. She archived nothing and hid everything until
she was discovered. The FBI unearthed several thousand more work-related emails
by finding traces of these in decommissioned servers. Other emails were found
in accounts of high-ranking officials at other agencies who also, according to
Comey, should have known better. It was widely known that she used a private,
unsecure email. How is that not grossly negligent?
Granted, I’m not a lawyer, but 18 U.S. Code 1924 —
“Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material” —
clearly states that anyone who “knowingly removes” materials “without authority
and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized
location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one
year, or both.” Perhaps a prosecution would have been tough, but everything
Comey laid out in his press conference — until the very end — only
substantiated that Hillary had nonchalantly mishandled classified information.
The case also speaks to trust of government. Comey
claimed that he put on this unusual press conference because a high-impact case
deserves extraordinary transparency. But transparency doesn’t exempt him from
criticism or his investigation from political pressure. Comey basically admits
as much near the end of his press conference.
To be clear, this is not to suggest
that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face
no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to
security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Many people have been prosecuted for far less, including
John Deutch, Sandy Berger, David Petraeus, and lesser-known names. Comey’s own words tell us Hillary should have
met a similar fate. Hillary will campaign with Barack Obama today, creating the
perception that the fix was in. Yesterday, a week after her husband had a private
meeting with the Attorney General, some Democrats signaled through a New York Times story that Hillary would
probably rehire Loretta Lynch. The stench of Clinton corruption is back. She is
above the law. And there is no one to stop her.
No comments:
Post a Comment