Let me start by saying that no-one with a particle of common sense would have wanted to see Hillary Clinton prosecuted if evidence of wrongdoing wasn’t there. Comey’s comments, however, left little doubt in anyone’s mind that the evidence was there and there in abundance. Director Comey spent most of thirteen plus minutes detailing the negligence exhibited by Mrs. Clinton and her staff in their handling of emails and highly sensitive government documents. He did not use the word “negligent,” however, and I am quite sure he did that on purpose. He claimed instead that she and her staff were extremely careless. Negligence, on the other hand, would have implied a failure to take proper care which resulted in damage or injury to others, the others in this case being the people of the United States of America.
Even to the casual observer it is painfully obvious that Mrs. Clinton was not only negligent but willfully negligent. Instead of adhering to government requirements that emails and documents be transmitted via properly configured and secured servers, she had several private servers installed, one in her Chappaqua home's basement. For Director Comey to rationalize that her actions did not warrant prosecution because the FBI could find no evidence of intent is laughable. Besides, intent does not mean you are not culpable; intent only determines your level of culpability. For example, murder in the first degree is murder that is premeditated, but the lesser charge of manslaughter is murder that is not premeditated and may have been accidental, that is, committed without prior intent. Nevertheless, the victim is still dead and you are still guilty.
In the case of Mrs. Clinton, we have a situation that, by virtue of the circumstances (she is, after all, the Democrat’s presumptive presidential nominee) makes the decision regarding culpability a purely political one. In other words, Mrs. Clinton has been exonerated not because she is innocent but because of who she is. Somehow the law has been mangled to hinge on “intent” in her case, and since there’s no hard proof she intended to act outside of the law, she has been given a pass. Ironically, Mr. Comey cautioned that any other federal employee who decides to put an undocumented server in the loo will be indicted, Mrs. Clinton’s case notwithstanding.
So, that is where we are and FBI Director Comey is just the latest appointee to be thrown under the bus by President Obama in the name of cronyism. Now Congress will grill him a bit and various members from both sides of the aisle will carry on their made-for-television one-act dramas designed to assuage their constituents. There will be some saber-rattling and then it will be effectively over as far as Washington and Hillary Clinton are concerned. Of course, that will not be true of the American people who have long been deprived of seeing the Clintons called to account for any of their numerous infractions and shady dealings. Between Bill’s accusations of sexual abuse and harassment, the cattle futures deal that netted Hillary thousands, Filegate Travelgate, Benghazi, Marc Rich, Vince Foster, their phony foundation, etc., the list is long and frustrating.
That brings me back to where I started when I mentioned the deal breakers. For conservatives, every one of the above-listed incidents would have been a deal breaker either because we wouldn’t have tolerated it or the media would have made sure we didn’t. Representative Larry Craig lost his career for allegedly soliciting a sexual encounter while in a bathroom stall. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald and his wife were convicted on federal corruption charges for accepting $175,000 and gifts from a local businessman (although this decision was recently vacated). And then there is the wreckage of CIA Director General David Petraeus’s career. Under fire from conservatives, Comey has double-downed, indicating that Petraeus’s case is exactly the kind of case worthy of prosecution. Why? Because Petraeus knowingly shared information, hid the evidence, lied about it, and then admitted he knew it was wrong. As far as I can tell, we are three for four with Mrs. Clinton. She still thinks she did nothing wrong.
If Mrs. Clinton is to feel the sting of culpability, then it must come from the voters in the November election. The message to her must be loud and clear: We do not trust you and we have no faith in your ability to serve as president. No matter what you think of candidate Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has displayed a wanton disregard for the rules. In her zeal to keep her communications private (the reasons for which are no doubt tied to the Clintons’ foundation and its dubious transactions), she has put national security at risk. Mr. Comey says there was no intent, which is patently ridiculous. Mrs. Clinton has obstructed the investigation from the get-go and destroyed evidence, thousands and thousands of emails. If she were innocent, would she have done this? Since Mr. Comey and the FBI refused to do their job, it falls to us, America. Hold her feet to the fire.
© Copyright WBrown2016. All Rights Reserved.