FBI DIRECTOR COMEY’S HILLARY DECISION IS UNDERSTANDABLE

…FBI Director, James B. Comey

 

Agree with Director Comey or not, his decision is reasonable.

 

For those that follow my Blog, I know it sounds very bazaar, but I may in fact be in agreement with the ultra-conservative, Charles Krauthammer.

 

What you say, how could that ever happen?

 

What I am coming to possibly agree on, is that when you seriously look at what Hillary Clinton did by sending or receiving a number of e-mails that contained confidential or secret material over an unofficial and un-protected system, most guilty individuals would have been put on probation, probably fined, and forever prohibited from having a security clearance.  This would of course, kill any chance of working in national security, or in this case, stop someone from becoming the most powerful leader in the world..

 

The reason I say this, is that just last year, the Justice Department prosecuted a naval reservist, Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.

 

The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and prohibited from ever seeking a security clearance.  It killed any chance of Nishimura ever working in national security.

 

Krauthammer today relates the latest FBI Director James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton, as being similar to Chief Justice John Roberts’ tortured argument for upholding Obamacare.

 

As Krauthammer explained it, as the guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, Roberts probably thought the issue too momentous to hinge on a decision of his high court. Especially after the questionable Bush v. Gore decision.  Roberts just wanted to keep the court from overturning the two political branches on such a monumental piece of social legislation.

 

Now, Clinton had either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified. Eight of these e-mail “chains” contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were marked as such, and that was contrary to Clinton’s assertion that there were none sent or received.  Whether she meant to lie, or if it was just a mistake, ignorance of the law was no excuse.

 

But Comey made his decision, and still let Hillary off the hook, citing her lack of intent.

 

What I have to say about that is that carelessness or gross negligence doesn’t require intent. Hillary did potentially compromise national secrets, and that is such a grave offense, that it does not require intent.

 

Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense.

 

Yes, it is safe to assume that Hillary had no malicious intentions to injure the nation. But she did intend to use an unsecured private server.  She did send those classified emails. And yes, she did receive warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email system.  She meant to do what she did, and she did it intentionally.

 

Krauthammer suggests that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar to that of Justice Roberts.  Comey did not want to be the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election.  If Clinton were not the presumptive presidential nominee, but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made different recommendations.

 

But to go after Hillary, this would have redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In Mr. Krauthammer’s point-of-view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history

 

I have to say, that I can’t be as sure as the conservative op-ed writer, but I also agree that his opinion is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Under the US statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as was outlined by Comey, was definitely overwhelming.

 

But the Director was correct that there was no guarantee that any prosecution of Hillary Clinton would succeed. 

 

And just imagine the scenario that if Director Comey knocked out of the political race, the most likely next president, and she ultimately were to be acquitted of guilt, how would history record Comey’s actions?

 

Where I definitely agree with Mr. Krauthammer is that the best way that either of us can reconcile Comey’s stellar reputation for integrity, with the logic of his Clinton decision, is by presuming that Comey just didn’t want to make that kind of history.

 

Krauthammer didn’t endorse Comey’s final decision, nor did he endorse Justice Roberts for his vote on Obamacare, but both Charles and I agree that if the presumptions are correct, we both do understand Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2016