Hillary The Innocent
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Let’s recap.
FBI James Comey – an Obama-appointee – held a press conference during which he described in detail how Hillary Clinton recklessly handled Top Secret information. He showed how she engaged in conduct prohibited by law and lied repeatedly about it to the public.
But it was a good day to be Hillary because the FBI director said he would not recommend that she be charged with any crimes – even though she likely committed several.
In his own words: “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.”
Huh? That’s Comey’s call? If you’re a federal prosecutor and you’d bring charges you’re unreasonable?
He’s saying there is evidence of crimes – serious crimes, by the way, felonies – but he just doesn’t think anybody would want to prosecute a case like that.
Really?
Tell that to Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura. He would likely beg to differ.
Less than a year ago, as reported by The Daily Caller, US attorneys Jean M. Hobler and Lee S. Bickley successfully prosecuted him in an eerily similar case.
Nishimura admitted to handling “classified materials inappropriately” while he was deployed to Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008.
He was a regional engineer and “had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers,” according to the FBI’s investigation.
The FBI reported, “Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.”
Sound familiar?
From the Daily Caller:
Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying “a large quantity of classified materials.”
Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”
Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.
He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.”
Seems to me there would have been no shortage of prosecutors willing to “bring such a case.”
Let’s look at 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or 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.
Let’s see, here. Was she an officer?
Check.
Did she become possessed of classified documents?
Check.
Did she knowingly remove those documents?
Check.
Did she retain them at an unauthorized location?
Check.
Did she fail to report it?
Check.
Then there’s 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
It says:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any ... information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust ... or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody ... and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Entrusted?
Check.
Negligence? (Comey called it “extreme carelessness.”)
Check.
Permits to be removed?
Check.
Had knowledge?
Check.
Failed to report?
Check.
Comey said he would not recommend criminal charges because of a lack of considerations “like the strength of evidence, especially regarding intent.” Later, he said the case lacked “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.”
How is setting up your own email server and running classified information through it not willful?
Beyond that, it seems to me the FBI director attached way too much significance to “intent.” He said Hillary didn’t “intend” to harm the US. OK, so what?
When does a criminal’s “intent” ever matter if there’s gross negligence?
Did the drunk driver “intend” to kill somebody? Probably not, but who cares?
Did the mom “intend” for her infant to die when she left him in the hot car?
There have been people busted for taking classified information home to work on it.
Besides, it seems to me a prosecutor would be able to show Hillary’s intent. If she didn’t know she was mishandling classified material, or didn’t intend to, why did she lie about it? Hillary repeatedly said, “I never sent or received anything that was marked classified when it was sent or received.” Sounds to me like she was trying to cover her tracks.
And Comey said this:
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.
So does that mean Hillary is going to lose her security clearance? A presidential candidate with no security clearance?
I am confident that any other government official carrying her level of security clearance would have been charged with a criminal offense, fired and stripped of their security clearance.
But in Hillary’s case we get a statement from the FBI director during which he sounded like her defense attorney.
So no prosecution is pending for Hillary and Democrats are celebrating their big victory.
But this is no cause for celebration – regardless of party.
Her lack of prosecution has little to do with her behavior, which I believe was patently criminal. It has everything to do with who she happens to be.
How about that tidy little meeting on the Phoenix tarmac between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch? A couple days later, Comey makes his play – which was on the very same day President Obama made his first campaign appearance with Hillary.
I will never believe this was all just a big coincidence.
What I do believe is that one of the bedrock principles of our nation’s system of justice – no one is above the law – just got trashed by Washington power elites.
Perhaps Hillary got herself sideways in a perjury trap during her sworn testimony before Congress. Or maybe they will yank her security clearance. I’m not holding my breath, though. She’ll likely just skate right into the White House.
Right now, it just seems like laws are for little people.[[In-content Ad]]
Let’s recap.
FBI James Comey – an Obama-appointee – held a press conference during which he described in detail how Hillary Clinton recklessly handled Top Secret information. He showed how she engaged in conduct prohibited by law and lied repeatedly about it to the public.
But it was a good day to be Hillary because the FBI director said he would not recommend that she be charged with any crimes – even though she likely committed several.
In his own words: “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.”
Huh? That’s Comey’s call? If you’re a federal prosecutor and you’d bring charges you’re unreasonable?
He’s saying there is evidence of crimes – serious crimes, by the way, felonies – but he just doesn’t think anybody would want to prosecute a case like that.
Really?
Tell that to Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura. He would likely beg to differ.
Less than a year ago, as reported by The Daily Caller, US attorneys Jean M. Hobler and Lee S. Bickley successfully prosecuted him in an eerily similar case.
Nishimura admitted to handling “classified materials inappropriately” while he was deployed to Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008.
He was a regional engineer and “had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers,” according to the FBI’s investigation.
The FBI reported, “Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.”
Sound familiar?
From the Daily Caller:
Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying “a large quantity of classified materials.”
Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”
Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.
He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.”
Seems to me there would have been no shortage of prosecutors willing to “bring such a case.”
Let’s look at 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or 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.
Let’s see, here. Was she an officer?
Check.
Did she become possessed of classified documents?
Check.
Did she knowingly remove those documents?
Check.
Did she retain them at an unauthorized location?
Check.
Did she fail to report it?
Check.
Then there’s 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
It says:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any ... information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust ... or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody ... and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Entrusted?
Check.
Negligence? (Comey called it “extreme carelessness.”)
Check.
Permits to be removed?
Check.
Had knowledge?
Check.
Failed to report?
Check.
Comey said he would not recommend criminal charges because of a lack of considerations “like the strength of evidence, especially regarding intent.” Later, he said the case lacked “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.”
How is setting up your own email server and running classified information through it not willful?
Beyond that, it seems to me the FBI director attached way too much significance to “intent.” He said Hillary didn’t “intend” to harm the US. OK, so what?
When does a criminal’s “intent” ever matter if there’s gross negligence?
Did the drunk driver “intend” to kill somebody? Probably not, but who cares?
Did the mom “intend” for her infant to die when she left him in the hot car?
There have been people busted for taking classified information home to work on it.
Besides, it seems to me a prosecutor would be able to show Hillary’s intent. If she didn’t know she was mishandling classified material, or didn’t intend to, why did she lie about it? Hillary repeatedly said, “I never sent or received anything that was marked classified when it was sent or received.” Sounds to me like she was trying to cover her tracks.
And Comey said this:
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.
So does that mean Hillary is going to lose her security clearance? A presidential candidate with no security clearance?
I am confident that any other government official carrying her level of security clearance would have been charged with a criminal offense, fired and stripped of their security clearance.
But in Hillary’s case we get a statement from the FBI director during which he sounded like her defense attorney.
So no prosecution is pending for Hillary and Democrats are celebrating their big victory.
But this is no cause for celebration – regardless of party.
Her lack of prosecution has little to do with her behavior, which I believe was patently criminal. It has everything to do with who she happens to be.
How about that tidy little meeting on the Phoenix tarmac between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch? A couple days later, Comey makes his play – which was on the very same day President Obama made his first campaign appearance with Hillary.
I will never believe this was all just a big coincidence.
What I do believe is that one of the bedrock principles of our nation’s system of justice – no one is above the law – just got trashed by Washington power elites.
Perhaps Hillary got herself sideways in a perjury trap during her sworn testimony before Congress. Or maybe they will yank her security clearance. I’m not holding my breath, though. She’ll likely just skate right into the White House.
Right now, it just seems like laws are for little people.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092