The FBI Director has refused to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and it all hinges on the word “intent.” Have we traveled full circle? I mean, remember when a President questioned the definition of the word “is?” Uncanny since both scenarios connect to episodes which the public had long before reached a knowing conclusion.
Given Hillary’s email antics, what now would qualify as an act of “criminal intent?” Her choice of private servers stemmed from her own decision while being fully aware of laws defining such actions. After all, this wasn’t her first rodeo.
After eight years as First Lady, time spent as a NY Senator and then assuming the reins of our State Department, this former lawyer remained embarrassingly ignorant as to the official statutes and regulations of her position as Secretary of State. Once again, as with her $1000.00 investment in the cattle futures, voting Americans are being asked to believe in the highly improbable, when in reality, her actions seem to be a clear cut case of a knowing and determined series of criminal acts. Her culpability is interwoven with her own decision making and recent testimony.
It is obvious that a criminal charge would probably have snuffed her candidacy for the Presidency. Many have even suggested that this FBI inquiry should have nixed her eligibility from the outset. Today, what has been rendered as a “recommendation” has unleashed an avalanche of public anger, even disgust.
With Comey’s performance, the first inclination was to think that while he was instructed to avoid prosecution, he nevertheless was determined to air the facts for all to judge, and he did this quite emphatically.
However, a fairly recent case with similar circumstances but without any national security implications, resulted in a two-year probationary sentence, in addition to a $7500.00 fine and loss of all security clearances.
As Judicial Watch reports, last July, a Navy reservist “pleaded guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials…” The FBI characterized the reservist’s offense as, “handled classified materials inappropriately.”
Yet Comey concludes, “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.” Also, possible “hostile actors” gaining access was noted.
In a local editorial, Comey stated, “None of those emails should have been on an unclassified system.” As the editorial continues, “federal statute makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” I have yet to fathom out how one’s intentions determines an investigation’s outcome.
To the voting public, the act committed is the crime. It’s not the intent that is being judged but the act itself. In an additional case, the unintentional loss of life to a SEAL recruit recently magnifies this tenet.
While the severity of SEAL training is defended as a prerequisite, it is now opined that “the actions, and inactions, of the instructors and other individuals involved were excessive and directly contributed to the death.” Only the “actions” and “the inactions” are cited. And of course, this is as it should be since law has enough difficulty unearthing guilt let alone trying to determine the nature of one’s heart and mind.
Even with the FBI’s “recommendation,” Hillary couldn’t win given Comey’s public condemnations. Still, an indictment would have short-circuited her campaign, probably immediately. So with this clear appearance of another preferential outcome, voter unrest just received an uptick.
Finally, Comey’s searing critique appears out of place versus his granting of a pass. So much so that his harsh critique suggests a private motive, possibly to ease an inner anguish. If so, a hint of corruption looms.
If this possibility exists, efforts should attempt to determine just how far and wide its reach is. Sadly, with this administration’s lack of transparency, smart money says that such a possibility is very likely to be located in the probability column. And, found in the third column of “certainty” will be the voter’s fate of remaining in the dark till after the election.