Comey, Clinton, Corruption, and Consequences

Today, more voters realized America is a banana republic.

The Politico brings us the following news:

FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday announced the agency is not recommending the Justice Department bring charges against Hillary Clinton, while also denouncing the former secretary of state and her aides for the way they handled classified information through private email servers.

"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 information that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey told reporters in Washington, D.C., noting that the probe has found that the former secretary of state used several different email servers and numerous devices during her time in office.

Even so, Comey added later, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges."

This investigation has hung like a dark shadow over Hillary Clinton for the entire length of this campaign.  She could have been indicted or even convicted and imprisoned, as so many conservatives and not a few leftists would have liked.  Now she can carry on running for President without worrying about a stay in Club Fed.  It's all good - like her husband Slick Willie, Crooked Hillary escapes the long arm of the law yet again!

Make no mistake, that is exactly what she has done.  It is not unusual for prosecutors to decide not to prosecute after concluding an investigation.  It is, however, extremely unusual for a prosecutor to first specifically state their findings which perfectly match the statute's description of the felony and then contradict themselves by saying there was no case!

As several respected legal bloggers have explained in great detail, the fact that Hillary didn't intend to pass classified information to the Russians and Red Chinese is entirely irrelevant.  We actually believe her protestations of innocence on this point: we find it hard to believe that even Crooked Hillary is so evil as to want our spies outed and executed.

But according to the law, what she intended does not matter:

Section 793(f) even lowers the requisite mens rea to gross negligence, generally defined as a very great negligence, or the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.

What was Director Comey's description of Hillary's actions?  They were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."  That is all the law requires for a felony conviction.  Intent to commit espionage has nothing to do with this particular crime.

Is it possible that Director Comey is unfamiliar with the applicable statutes?  Of course not - we all know, as Donald Trump pithily put it, "The system is rigged."  Those of us we still held some naive hopes that justice might actually be served can now consider ourselves painfully disillusioned, or, as actress Lily Tomlin once said, "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."

Karma and the Witch

So does that mean it's all over - we'll shortly have to be saluting someone who the whole world knows to be an unconvicted felon who cares nothing for national security of the nation she presumes to (mis)lead?  Not necessarily.

Because Donald Trump wasn't the only major candidate who called out this disgraceful episode as the corruption that it is.  For many months now, Bernie Sanders has been using those same exact words - "The system is rigged!" - and now his supporters are hearing the same oh-so-believable message from the mouth of The Donald.

Even CNN had to admit:

The Tuesday announcement also set off a torrent of anger and frustration among some of Bernie Sanders' most diehard supporters, a vocal minority who have been agitating for an indictment of the former secretary of state.

There followed an array of incandescent tweets from far-leftists which would be equally at home on any conservative board.

We've written before about how, to a great many Sanders supporters, Trump was their second choice and vice-versa.  While their policies may be quite different and their styles even more so, both have identified the same fundamental problem: our incompetent, corrupt, unaccountable, aristocratic, delusional elites whom we can't seem to get rid of no matter what we do in the voting booth.

Respected opinion journals are now openly saying what conservatives have been muttering for some years now: Our officeholders have grown so obnoxiously and openly corrupt that they no longer deserve the respect that their office historically has entitled them to.

Today, Director Comey gave us even worse news: he has ensured that all America and the entire world knows that our laws no longer deserve respect or deference, since laws are "enforced" only at the whim of the Permanent Party of Government.  We also know beyond any doubt that enforcement is exclusively against us rubes and never against the elites no matter how serious the crime - even this most serious of crimes which, if done intentionally, would be high treason.

We had thought that Director Comey was a straight shooter because he threatened to resign when he disagreed with something Mr. Bush proposed. Apparently, he's only a straight shooter when it's a Republican on the hook: when it was a Democrat angling for a pass, he caved.  Whether he accepted the promise of a job or an offer of ¿Plata o Plomo? we may never know, but this we do know:

There used to be a social contract requiring that our government treat us all equally within the scope of the Constitution and defend us, and in return we would recognize the legitimacy of its laws and defend it when in need. But that contract has been breached. We are not all equal before the law. Our constitutional rights are not being upheld. We are not being defended – hell, we normals get blamed every time some Seventh Century savage goes on a kill spree. Yet we’re still supposed to keep going along as if everything is cool, obeying the law, subsidizing the elite with our taxes, taking their abuse. We’ve been evicted by the landlord but he still wants us to pay him rent... It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.

Will the angry Sandersistas vote for Trump and put him in the Oval Office?  We can't know.  No more can we be sure that a President Trump will actually keep his promises, whether it be building the Wall, booting out Muslims, or negotiating better trade deals.

But we do know for sure what we'll get from a President Hillary: corruption and misgovernance such as America has never before experienced, not even in the worst days of King George.

Will enough voters realize this?  Thanks to Director Comey's jaw-dropping dishonesty and Hillary's ham-handed evasiveness... maybe, just maybe, they will.  It all comes down to them, which, in a democracy, is as it should be.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Petrarch or other articles on Law.
Reader Comments

Trump refers to "rigged systems" while his hands tightly clutch winches hooks and rigging cables.

The only reason he's upset this time around, is because he's not part of THIS particular rigging. When it comes to the traditional rigged Big Government/Big Biz system, his fingerprints are right in the middle of it. In fact, he appears not to be able to succeed any other way.

But pay no mind to all that. He's angry right now and saying all the same things we are, so we'll skip merrily along after his happy tunes!

July 5, 2016 7:07 PM

In the 1st place, Hillary belongs in a small, stainless steel room 23 hours a day down the hall from Robert Hanssen at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado. The fact is, what the two of them did isn't really very dissimilar at all.

Second, @lfon, I really don't know what you hope to gain by bleating furiously about Trump every time you post. The choice gets more stark and more clear and much, much more obvious each and every day.

July 5, 2016 7:30 PM

Bro John, I'm not sure what Scragged and other pro-Trump outlets hope to gain by continually dragging Trump into every issue/article/event and projecting a bunch of conservative principles onto him every chance they get.

Re: stark differences... You don't really believe that. If you want a stark difference, look at someone like Gary Johnson.

July 5, 2016 7:51 PM

Makes you wonder what Bill told A G Lynch on that plane in Phoenix. We now know that the Clintons think it is a good idea to re-appoint Lynch. Sounds like Comey was a throw in as well. I imagine that future lucrative jobs with the Clinton Foundation were intimated. I'm sure there are plenty of dictators willing to pay $1MM for a 15 minute speech from an ex AG or FBI director.
Hard to believe that Hillary can get the undecideds she needs to add to her loyal Taker base. The undecideds tend to be better educated and take their vote seriously.... not just as a means to assure an income. Let's hope they notice the Clinton stench.

July 5, 2016 8:54 PM

@lfon,
I would be cheerfully in support of Johnson or other such Libertarians, were they not nutbags. Last I heard from him, he was an open-borders fool who believes we don't *really* need a Navy.

Constitutionalism wasn't really on the menu this time around -- again. If it were, I would expect to hear a candidate promising masterly inactivity once x departments had been abolished and all illegal aliens deported.

So I'll take what I can get: yes, the differences between Trump and Hillary are indeed stark. Trump is the only candidate who ever used the word "deport" without qualifying with the word "can't." With a Democrat, you can rely on the malfeasance being deliberate; in Trump's case, we might be able to believe that he at least means well from time to time.

July 5, 2016 9:57 PM

Oh, I see - we're talking past each other here. I thought you meant "differences" in the real sense. ie. What people do, not what they say. Like scragged, you assume that what goofy salesmen say is actually what they do. How silly of me!

July 5, 2016 10:23 PM

Comey didn't need an offer of ¿Plata o Plomo?. He's a true Bush Republican, just like John Roberts. Which is to say he is corrupt not in the sense of getting envilopes stuffed with cash from the Clintons, but by virtue of having a well-remunerated situation that he's not willing to disturb by actually doing his job. In Roberts case he was willing to sacrifice the Constitution rather than be held responsible for shaking the boat; in Comey's case it was upholding the law that he was willing to see go by the board.

July 6, 2016 12:15 AM

@Ifon: Plugging the open-borders nutjob Johnson means you prefer Clinton to Trump. OK, we've classified you: Now stop with the tiresome bloviation. As the article says, "we [can't] be sure that a President Trump will actually keep his promises... But we do know for sure what we'll get from a President Hillary..." And electing her is AGREEING to getting screwed.

July 6, 2016 12:24 AM

Comey was in on the Whitewater investigation.

July 7, 2016 11:23 PM

Here's Glenn Greenwald, as loony-left as it gets, complaining about the hypocrisy of giving Hillary a pass.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37883-washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton

Of course, he thinks everybody should get a pass on revealing secrets, but at least he is angry at the lack of justice.

July 8, 2016 6:28 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...