Yesterday FBI Director James Comey did his best impression of an 18 year old future college athlete on an ESPN signing day special. Comey took the podium, and laid out the logical and factual basis for an indictment of Secretary Clinton. But just as you thought he was going to commit to your alma mater, he pulled an Ohio State hat from beneath the table and shocked the world. Pundits all across the spectrum were puzzled by Comey’s decision. Comey stated that Clinton was “extremely careless” and “negligent.”
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” continued Comey.
The director even went so far as to say that it is possible that “hostile actors” and “sophisticated adversaries” gained access to top secret information through Secretary Clinton’s negligence. So, what then could possibly justify a refusal to indict such a person? Comey stated Clinton could not be indicted not because she didn’t break the law, but because he could not establish her criminal intent to break the law.
If a patron of the local Cotton Eyed Joe has one too many Mike’s Hard Lemonades this coming Sunday night, gets into a fist fight that goes too far, and ultimately ends up killing another person, will he not be charged with murder? He didn’t bring a gun or knife. There’s no proof he meant to use lethal force. All the same, he would be held responsible for his victim’s death. Likewise, if on the family trip to New York City this year Joe Shmo crosses the city limits and enters NYC in possession of his Glock 19 pistol, will he not be prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm? Will the kindhearted liberals of the New York court system let him go, because “well he just didn’t know the laws here”? It is a well documented fact that he would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why does Clinton get a pass people in these scenarios would not?
Furthermore, Director Comey, under scrutiny from Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), admitted that one of the ways to prove criminal intent in court, is to catch the defendant in a lie. Falsity indicates that one knows they have something to hide, and therefore implies they knowingly and intentionally broke the law. It may be hard for some readers to believe, but Honest Hillary lied about her private server…a lot… potentially under oath to Congress. She stated over and over that she did not send or recieve any classified materials on her private server. Director Comey testified that the server contained 150 email threads with classified material, including some with top secret material. Secretary Clinton repeatedly stated that the only reason she had the private server was for convenience, so she could keep everything on her “one server.” Testimony from Director Comey revealed that she did not have one server, but actually several in use at her Chappaqua, New York headquarters during the time she served as Secretary of State. Why does a person who is truly ignorant of the law, and who did not know what she was doing was criminal need to tell all kinds of lies about the criminal action in question? If Hillary was ignorant of the law as she states, then why lie?
Perhaps conservatives are being too harsh on Clinton. Perhaps the now aged stateswoman really didn’t know. Maybe Comey was right when he said she was just “extremely careless.” Trump has taken to calling her “Crooked Hilary.”Maybe “Careless Hillary” is a more fitting moniker. Time and time again, scandal after scandal, Careless Hillary simply didn’t know any better. Careless Hillary didn’t know about the 600 requests for additional security sent to her by American personnel in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. Careless Hillary didn’t know it was illegal to put top secret information on a Blackberry. Careless Hillary didn’t realize it is inappropriate for a high ranking government official to accept private “donations” from foreign dignitaries. In fairness, maybe conservatives are wrong. Maybe she is as straight as an arrow, but just has inexplicably poor judgement. Either way, is this the kind of person whom you want as your commander in chief?