Under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the FBI director James Comey referred to the Clinton investigation as a “matter.” While it could be argued that this was to steer public attention away from Hillary Clinton, was it really just that?
Many of the things Clinton did were and still are questionable, including her actions and inactions at Benghazi and her illegal use of a private email server as the head of the State Department. However, does anyone really know where it all stops? Probably not.
While it’s clear Donald Trump has dropped his “lock her up!” pledge since assuming the presidency, Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a politician still deserves a thorough examination.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano succinctly outlines the background of the whole Clinton mess, starting with Comey’s July 5, 2016 public announcement that the FBI recommended not put Clinton up for an indictment for espionage.
Furthermore, Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in a private meeting while he was under investigation by the FBI. Though they both denied speaking about the investigation, no one will ever know the truth.
However, Lynch recused herself and her senior Department of Justice management from Hillary Clinton’s case, which gave Comey the authority to determine whether Clinton should be investigated. Comey spoke for prosecutors, stating that “no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against Mrs. Clinton.”
A Crime That Wasn’t a Crime
In any other case, failure to safeguard state secrets would be a treasonous crime. Two other cases resulted in harsh penalties for actions that were far less traitorous than what Clinton did.
A young Sailor was accused of and prosecuted for espionage because a selfie sent to his girlfriend showing the sonar screen of the sub he was stationed on. A Marine was prosecuted because he warned superiors via a Gmail account that an Al Qaeda operative dressed as a police officer was inside an American encampment.
General David Patraeus was prosecuted because he didn’t lock up top-secret information while it was inside his guarded home. The general was also accused of sharing those secrets with a friend. However, those charges were dropped since the friend also has security clearance.
In Clinton’s case, top-secret information was disseminated via a private, unsecured email account that resided on an unsecured server in Clinton’s home. In fact, regardless of who procured the emails, they were stolen from her and released to the public, including correspondence with confidential and/or top-secret information. But this wasn’t deemed a crime.
At least the public in general did not see the information Patraeus had in his home, the selfie or the Marine’s email warning of the Al-Qaeda operative.
18 U.S.C. §793 clearly shows that whether you have intent or not, you should be punished if it’s found that you’re acting carelessly with state secrets. While many believe Clinton showed intent because she knew her server was unsecured and illegal, Comey argued that there was no intent, and therefore couldn’t be charged.
Regardless of intent, §793(f) states that, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing… (1) through gross negligence permits 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 or delivered to anyone… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
In Comey’s own words, the FBI found that Clinton’s actions, at the least, were “gross negligence,” as he stated when he said that she was “extremely careless.”
The FBI found that seven email chains contained information that was classified at top secret and/or special access program levels. These were sent and/or received in an unsecured email through an unsecured server.
Reopening the Investigation
With the recent testimony of Comey after his firing, he brought up additional concerns that should cause the FBI to reopen the “matter” against Clinton and seek an indictment. He testified that Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” instead of an investigation.
Furthermore, Comey testified that he was “uncomfortable” with several of Lynch’s actions during the investigation against Clinton, but stated that he could not testify about those actions in a public forum.
“A number of things had gone one which I can’t talk about yet, that made me worry that the Department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation,” Comey said.
In addition to reopening the investigation against Clinton, Comey and Lynch should also be investigated, at the very least, for obstruction of justice.
~ Conservative Zone