Numerous requests to comment on James Comey’s latest decision on the Hillary email scandal compelled me to respond.
First: Any subsequent investigation into the email issue was set up to fail the moment James Comey decided to create an artificial measure of intent back in July. Recall that the FBI Director invented what I call the “Comey Intent Clause,” which essentially said a lawbreaker who meant no harm never actually broke the law. Even a novice lawyer knows that determining whether someone broke national security laws is not predicated on whether that person intended to cause harm by doing so. A crime is committed when someonebreaks the law; the reasons for doing so are factored into the punishment.
That artificial qualification now requires the FBI to prove that Clinton and others intended to harm the United States. The latest email recovery would have to find something akin to Clinton knowingly providing nuclear information to the Russians or military maneuvers to ISIS. It would have to be that dramatic because, remember, she meant no harm.
Therefore, the latest email discovery failed before it started. The FBI can indeed review 600k emails in such a short period because they are looking for something like Clinton passing Putin the names of American spies in Moscow. That can be determined rather quickly. And remember, this torpedoes any future email investigation. When the FBI locates yet another device with more of Hillary’s emails (and they probably will), the investigation will be a non-starter.
More importantly, it mars the other ongoing investigations surrounding the Clinton camp. No reasonable prosecutor would pursue the foundation and pay-to-play scandals under the “Comey Intent Clause,” for instance, unless they have clear evidence that Podesta, Clinton or any others intended to harm the United States.
So let’s recap. Comey laid out in excruciating detail how she broke the law in July, and then dismissed all that behavior because she didn’t mean any harm by it. By that standard, ongoing or future inquiries that suggest someone broke a law will not move forward without proof of malicious intent.
Recommended
Second: I will not speculate on whether corruption exists within the FBI or particularly within Comey’s office. I will look at the evidence, which points to breathtaking corruption within the Clinton camp and those connected to them at the Department of Justice. See Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik or the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting in Phoenix. These don’t include broader issues of DNC co-opting the primary or coordinating pre-debate information with media outlets like CNN.
Lastly: To those that have asked me and others to move on from the email scandal, to “let it go,” now that another “final” decision has been made. I say the following:
· Consider this: The Comey decision is a legal one. The fact remains that Clinton decided to risk America’s security for her convenience. Her behavior justifies continued and well-earned rebukes.
· Consider this: I once drove an hour and half out of my way just to drop off notes in my secure office because, although not yet in an official report, that information was classified the minute I wrote it down. I did this because the law, and my love for this country, demanded I do so.
· Consider this: sources risk their lives to provide the United States information that keeps you safe. She decided her conveyance mattered more than you and those people helping us.
Comey punted responsibility on behalf of Clinton for reasons unknown. Clinton punted responsibility by waiting nearly 18 months before offering any sort of worthwhile apology.
In the end, however, it’s the pattern of behavior that remains a concern. Whether it’s Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, or the email scandal, national security has often taken a backseat to self and convenience. I fear this behavior will not change.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member