(BigGovernment.news) By now it should be obvious to any serious – and unbiased (if there is such a person) – political observer that Bill and Hillary Clinton have nine lives plus when it comes to surviving scandal and accusations of illegality, following FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend the current Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting be indicted for improper handling of classified data.
Though clearly, by all measures, standards and definitions, Hillary Clinton is guilty and should have been recommended for indictment. Here is part of what Comey said during a previously unannounced press conference Tuesday:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
TRANSLATION: She’s guilty but we won’t prosecute.
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”
TRANSLATION: If you did this, you would be in prison.
Any clear-headed reading of the statutes and relevant Executive Branch authority indicates that Hillary has again gotten away with something she shouldn’t have done and knew she shouldn’t have done. You be the judge.
Per President Obama’s Executive Order 13526, Sect. 1.3(5)(d):
All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable.
Sect. 5.5 states:
If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;
(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or
(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information states:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
From Comey’s statement some of the most relevant portions:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. …
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. …
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. …
He also said – and this is probably the most important part regarding his decision not to recommend indictment:
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.
Legal experts, especially those affiliated with prosecuting intelligence cases, will tell you that in all legal cases, intent is general and specific – but that in dealing with “spillage” of classified information, general intent is enough to go on when seeking prosecution.
Besides that, Comey’s statement that Clinton didn’t “intend” to violate laws governing the handling of classified information is laughable on its face, for it ignores the fact that Clinton intended to shield her communications – from prying eyes, from future Freedom of Information Act requests, from government watchdogs – simply by the act of intentionally setting up a private email server in her home. If that doesn’t indicate “intent,” then nothing does.
Comey also said this:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
And yet, they were on unprotected systems. That’s textbook “spillage” or, in intelligence community parlance, leaving classified information in the open to be stolen.
He then said this:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
Again, as stated in the statutes and Obama’s executive order, is it reasonable to say that Clinton did not “knowingly and willfully” transmit classified information, given that she set up her own server and “knowingly” used it to conduct classified State Department business?
Then Comey made this pronouncement, which really turns everything he has said on its head and exposes the very political nature of this decision:
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.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
How do you determine that other people who commit the same acts that Clinton committed would face legal actions but not Hillary Clinton?
Comey obviously understands the political field in which he is currently deployed. He obviously understands that no matter what, as merely an FBI director he has neither the power nor the reach to see Clinton indicted and prosecuted. But clearly, based on what he has actually said, he believes that such actions would normally be warranted.
For her part, Clinton also perfectly understands the political field in which she is deployed. Under any other circumstances, she would be staring out of a jail cell in several months after a trial and successful prosecution based on the very evidence Comey just laid out.
There are a couple of takeaways here, other than the obvious: 1) The Democratic Party is thoroughly, unabashedly corrupt; and 2) There is every reason in the world to go to the polls in November and make the Clintons politically irrelevant for the rest of their lives.
- California’s Enviro-Whacko Lawmakers To Close State’s Last Zero-Emission Nuclear Plant In Favor Of Costly, Unproven ‘Green’ Energy
- Senate Does The Right Thing In Blocking All Four Recent Measures Aimed At Decimating The Second Amendment
- Defending The Indefensible: Broke Govt. Tries To Justify Funding Goofy, Meaningless ‘Studies’