Another post in The Red Zone, a place where I let my conservative convictions show.
The big news this week has been the FBI’s announcement that they do not recommend indicting Hillary Clinton on any charges relating to her handling of sensitive emails. Clearing the possibility of an indictment from her path is a significant boost to her chances in this year’s Presidential Elections. However, as Jeff asserts in his reactions below, the FBI’s statement is quite convicting of her cavalier attitude and practices regarding matters of national security. It remains to be seen how the report is used to impact the election in the court of public opinion over the next four months.
From Jeff Murphy:(July 5) I first want to say that FBI Director James Comey is honest and non-political. Although he did not recommend prosecution, he laid out a devastating case against Hillary. He shredded all her defenses and explanations. Contrary to what she repeatedly asserted, he listed classified items that were marked as classified that she both sent and received on her insecure server(s). He also detailed additional e-mails (about 2000) the FBI recovered that were not included in the 30,000 e-mails she did disclose. He said that he did not find evidence that these were omitted intentionally (that I doubt, but I am not questioning that Comey did not find evidence of intentionally omitting these e-mails; they were ones that had already been deleted when her lawyers reviewed the e-mails or ones they missed, because, they used captions and search routines, while the FBI read everything it recovered from end to end).
And Comey’s statement is being misrepresented already. He did not say Hillary did not commit criminal acts; indeed his finding that she was “extremely careless” with classified information falls into the section that makes it a misdemeanor to reveal classified information by grossly negligent conduct. What he said was that this was not a case that could be prosecuted with any reasonable chance of success and that, therefore, no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case.
Although he did not say it, a criminal case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so even if there is a case that it is more likely than not that a crime was committed, this isn’t good enough. Also, Comey looked through precedent and concluded that no case of the mishandling of classified information had ever been prosecuted where there wasn’t evidence that it was intentional or that the person was disloyal, or that large quantities of classified information was revealed. Note that Comey had been a U.S. attorney and Deputy Attonrey General in his previous career, so he is speaking from deep knowledge. Comey went on to say that an ordinary government official would likely have faced administrative sanction for such conduct.
Hillary extremely careless with classified emails(July 6) Here is the text of FBI Director Comey’s statement on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail. It isn’t that long to read, and I urge anyone who wants to be informed to read it. This is an indictment in the court of public opinion and could very reasonably have supported an indictment, though Director Comey, in good faith, holds the opinion that an indictment should not be sought. Important note: Comey did not say she did not violate the law but that a reasonable prosecutor would not bring the case because it would be too unlikely to result in a conviction (my translation of what he said).
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System(July 7) Rasmussen finds a 54-37 majority against the decision not to indict Hillary Clinton. The strongest feeling seems to be that D.C. politicians aren’t subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That its a theme Republicans are stressing and they should stay on it. Also, in particular, there is the “Clinton exception” to nearly all the rules. We may be getting near to critical mass on this.
Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton
Ridiculous State Department argument – some e-mails were marked classified by accident. And even so, they shouldn’t have been on an insecure server until this classification was corrected. Anyway this is just a couple of them. They are grasping at straws and trying to put up anything that even looks like an argument.
State Dept: Emails marked classified on accident.