The Single Most Troubling Thing In FBI’s Announcement Of Hillary’s Email Investigation
We all listened intently.
As FBI Director laid on the specific details of how Hillary Clinton handled email during her tenure as Secretary of State, it seemed obvious to any reasonable person who is not a complete Clinton hack that Comey would recommend criminal charges.
Nope. Not for Queen Hillary.
1. Classified and Top Secret Emails
2. No Archive of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Emails
3. Hillary Clinton and Lawyers “Could” Have Deleted Emails
4. FBI Investigation Like Putting Together a “Jigsaw Puzzle”
5. “Extremely Careless”
6. “Reasonable Person” Should Have Known
7. No Full-Time Security Staff Monitoring
8. Absence of ‘Classified’ Marking is Not an Excuse
9. State Department Under Hillary Clinton Lax on Security
10. If Hillary Clinton’s Email was Hacked, It Would Be Difficult to Discover
11. ‘Hostile Actors’ Did Access Emails of Hillary Clinton’s Contacts
Numbers 2,3, and 4 above seems to indicate an intentional obstruction of justice on the part of Hillary Clinton and her staff.
Items 1, 2, 5,6, 7, 8, and 9 confirm Comey’s statement of “extreme carelessness and reckless behavior.”
Here’s a question:
In the eyes of the law, how is “extreme carelessness” not deemed “gross negligence”?
According to former New York State Attorney General, Rudy Giuliani’s interview with Brian Williams, there is no difference:
Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks with NBC’s Brian Williams about why he was shocked that the FBI declined to recommend criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton for keeping classified data on an unsecured private server and accessing that data using an off-the-shelf Blackberry phone.
FBI director Comey said that: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Sec. Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless.”
Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. “The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,” he said. The FBI “clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent — it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense.”
“It’s the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary,” he said. “It’s the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison.”
So we have a Presidential candidate who clearly obstructed justice, exercised “extreme carelessness and reckless behavior” in handling classified national security information.
No “reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case on criminal charges based on these items?
So is Comey implying that Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice are NOT “reasonable prosecutors” but useless political appointees serving at the pleasure of the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, and the Clintons?
Yes, all these items are certainly shocking and would land ANY other person not named Clinton in jail, but the single most troubling thing Comey revealed about the FBI investigation is this:
We have no idea if Hillary’s email was hacked. Hostile actors did access emails of Hillary’s contacts.
This means its highly probable that Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and others have classified national security information or CIA agent information in hand.
Voting for Hillary Clinton is extremely careless and reckless.
As President she is open to blackmail without warning from the first minute she takes the Oath of Office.
Any reasonable voter knows and understands this is a risk we can not afford to take.