According to FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton has met every requirement for a felony violation under Section 793(f) of the federal penal code: with the access to sensitive information afforded her by her position as Secretary of State, Hillary acted with “gross negligence” in removing that information from its rightful, secure place and sending it to others who had no permission to view it.
Comey even admitted that Clinton was “extremely careless” and suggested that her reckless behavior probably led to sensitive information being obtained by foreign intel services. In spite of this, Mr. Comey has advised against prosecution on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton did not intend to harm the United States.
To give Hillary a “free pass,” the FBI has in effect rewritten the federal statue, adding an intent element that makes absolutely no sense. The entire point of having a law that criminalizes “gross negligence” is to highlight the fact that government officials have a responsibility to protect national defense secrets. If an official fails to do so by acting carelessly, that person is guilty of breaking the law. Whether or not such harm was intended should be irrelevant.
“It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a strawman for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed,” writes National Review’s Andrew McCarthy. This sometimes confuses the jury into thinking the defendant is not guilty of the true crime. “Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.”
The FBI seems to have used this dirty trick, telling the public that “because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States,” continues McCarthy.
Gross negligence rules and laws exist to protect national security. Hillary Clinton clearly violated the statute and did almost certainly endanger national security. Why, then, has the FBI decided not to prosecute her? Was Comey threatened? Bribed? Or is he just scared to prosecute the nation’s leading presidential nominee? It just doesn’t add up.