It was announced yesterday (7/5/16) that Director of the FBI James Comey was not going to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton in the email scandal that has been ongoing for many years now. In his official statement, the FBI Director said the following, to sum things up:
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Now, I want to address a few things that Clinton’s supporters and fefenders will try to say following this.
#1. When They Were Classified
The first point that might be made is that the emails were classified AFTER the chains or emails took place, and which did happen in many cases. However, the Investigation found the following:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
What about those later classified emails? The report reads:
Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
So, to be clear: CLASSIFIED EMAILS WERE SENT THROUGH THE SERVER. This is an undeniable fact, and has been completely proven now by the FBI.
#2. She Handed Over All The Emails
This argument is also going to fall apart, since the FBI also did more digging. As the report details:
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
And what about these emails? Were any of them at all classified?
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
Now, let us discuss the Director’s conclusion. This is where something really doesn’t smell right.
First off, allow me to address the biggest elephant in the room. The law has been broken. Hillary sent CLASSIFIED emails from a Non-State Department email server. She has commited a felony. That is clear. The law has been broken. He practically even says that in his own speech:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Heck, even they pointed out that security with comms isn’t good at the State Department under Clinton’s time as Secretary of State:
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
And here’s where we finally begin to see his conclusion, where he comes out and say’s what I had a feeling he was going to say:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
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 bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
To translate, “Although there is evidence that the law has been broken, we’re recommending that Sec. Clinton not be charged with said comitted crimes”. That’s basically what it translates to.
And to close out, this part really seemed interesting to me:
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.
What an interesting way to end your investigation, just only several days after the FBI Director’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, met with the person-under-investigation’s husband, Bill Clinton, to “chat about grandchildren”. Do I believe that for a second? Not at all, especially with the timing of this decision.
Corruption is a nasty thing, and sometimes, those who fight against it are silent when it’s of benefit to them. Thus is why no one on the left will say that the above is of any importance, and probably call anyone who question’s it a conspriacy theorist.
Now, you will see an emboldened Hillary Clinton, champion of corruption and Wall Street cronyism, saying that this is a victory for “the people”. It may have also decisively ended the 2016 Presidential election, in giving it to her. Trump will go on a Twitter rant, as per usual, and the media will only give bread crumbs to Gary Johnson, the only decent person in this race.
This is the sad state of our Republic as of 2016, and I try to remain hopeful that things will get better, but for the immediate future, I’m not sure I can see that.