I commend to your attention Mel Robbins’s remarks at CNN:
The FBI basically just called the story Clinton has been telling the public since 2015 a bunch of nonsense. Contrary to what Clinton has been saying, the server did in fact contain classified emails: 113 of them. Her actions did in fact expose the classified information to attacks by “hostile actors.”
As Comey said, “any reasonable person … should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for that sort of information. And Clinton and her team did delete emails that contained classified information. Those are facts, and they contradict what Clinton and her team have been saying.
The head of the FBI slammed Clinton and her team as “extremely careless.” I think it’s worse; I think she’s extremely clueless about the bigger picture.
In law school, we often talked about the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. She may not have violated the letter of the law (although there’s debate there, too) but she sure as hell violated the spirit of it.
Read the whole thing.
Update
It ain’t over ’til it’s over. Read Charles Lipson’s analysis at RealClearPolitics on what we may expect about Hillary Clinton’s emails. They include political ads showing her lying, demands that the results of the FBI investigation be made public, sad stories of lower level people having been jailed for doing less than Hillary Clinton did, leaks from the FBI, and leaks of emails from Russia, China, etc.
Comey is on TV right now testifying that no one – not one of the people on the FBI side – thought the facts warranted prosecution. Not one.
You’re letting your personal distaste for Mrs. Clinton drive your analysis.
That could be, Michael. However, Mr. Comey needs to explain the difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence”. The legal definition of “gross negligence” is “extreme carelessness”. That’s not my definition; it’s the standard legal definition.
In the presence of gross negligence, intent is not required for a crime to have been committed. In other words, it really sounds to me and, I think, to any reasonable person that Mr. Comey is drawing distinctions where there are none. It makes little difference if everyone at the FBI agrees with him if they’re all making the same mistakes.
Additionally, I think that any reasonable person should have “distaste” for Sec. Clinton. The distinction should be between overcoming your distaste to do what you think is the better of two completely unpalatable alternatives rather than wholeheartedly supporting someone who is obviously unsuited for the job of president. Only blind partisanship can explain the latter stance.
Another rationale he seems to use is also untenable IMO- that it would be nearly unprecedented to indict. If I’m not mistaken he cited that there had only been one prosecution under the “gross negligence” part of that statute in 100 years. So what? If what she did was unprecedented, that does not give her immunity.
One of the advantages of being in Maui is you have to work at getting news. In any event this is a mess and a sad chapter for the country. That said, sometimes the best explanation is the obvious one.
When you have bizarre conflicting statements: “no reasonable prosecutor” vs “this is not to say in similar circumstances.” Especially given that examples of prosecuted cases are popping up now.
When you declare total reliance on a lack of pattern of intent standard (after you have just established that pattern) while wholly ignoring gross negligence, which is bald faced cited in the statute.
It’s hard not to come to a simple conclusion. It was a simple act of politics. The question is who instructed him.
I had originally thought Comey might lean on the notion that there was not a punishment commensurate with the offense, despite the fact that was not his charge. However it is clear there are lesser penalties available. In addition, if the server has indeed been hacked by foreign nationals as it seems is the case, it’s hardly a minor offense and the very reason for the gross negligence standard.
There is a humorous cartoon showing HRC at a podium with the campaign slogan, “not illegal, just grossly careless.” I wonder what the HRC defenders envision that she could have been doing or thinking that could plausibly be innocuous. She is a lawyer, wise in the ways of politics, has access to any advisory resources needed, went to great lengths to construct this scheme and eventually had to resort to lying and obfuscated at every turn of the subsequent investigation. Not a good election strategy. I can only conclude she did it because she knew she could. That some people are conferred preferred legal status because of political status. Which is of course the central fallout here. And I might add, looked at sympathetically by the very same crowd who decried similar privilege for the banks.
I believe michael is misquoting- I’m pretty sure Comey simply said that the decision was unanimous, not that they all agreed that the facts didn’t warrant prosecution (correct me if I’m wrong.)
I assume michael also heard the director’s other remarks, like when he stated that he would have fired her for these actions if she’d been under his employment. Or the chuckle worthy speculation that she may not have been sophisticated enough to know that the “C” marking indicated “Confidential” (gee, maybe there should be a training program for people getting security clearance…)
” Especially given that examples of prosecuted cases are popping up now.”
Which ones?