Negligent, Incompetent, but Unindicted

Member Group : Jerry Shenk

In a July 5 statement, FBI Director James Comey laid out an ironclad case which exposed and eviscerated every lie and evasion Hillary Clinton has told or made about her use of a private email server. In fact, Comey revealed that Clinton recklessly broke the law by conducting sensitive government business on multiple insecure private servers, willfully violated security protocols and instructed subordinates to do the same.

Then, risibly, Comey announced that the FBI would not seek her indictment.

Comey said, "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," following which a number of former federal prosecutors publicly stated that, using only Comey’s stated evidence, they would have brought indictments.

Comey didn’t recommend a legal indictment, but he did indict Hillary Clinton’s character, judgment and competence. "Incompetent and negligent, but unindicted" are appallingly inadequate qualifications for the presidency.

Comey may have known that Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s politically-weaponized Justice Department would refuse to indict Clinton or the president would short-circuit her prosecution, so, by at least laying out a case that should realistically disqualify her from public service, Comey’s public statement prevented the administration from exonerating Clinton.

More Comey: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

In the sentence, "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions," Comey implies that other actions could be taken against Clinton. In a sane, non-politicized world, Clinton would face consequences for what she did, and certainly never be given another job requiring a security clearance.

"But that is not what we are deciding now" — begs some questions: What remains to be decided, by whom and when? Hillary clearly perjured herself in sworn congressional testimony; the House has promised a perjury investigation referral to the FBI; and the agency’s Clinton Foundation foreign money pay-to-play investigation remains open.

Following Comey’s appearance, Judicial Watch, the government watchdog organization instrumental in ferreting out the Clinton server felonies, released a statement: "‚ĶJames Comey detailed Hillary Clinton’s massive destruction of government records and grossly negligent handling of classified information. Frankly, there’s a disconnect between Comey’s devastating findings and his weak recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Federal prosecutors, independent of politics, need to consider whether to pursue the potential violations of law confirmed by the FBI."

Confidence in government depends on the evenhanded administration of justice. Exempting Hillary Clinton from laws to which everyone else is subject reinforces the impression that laws apply only to the little people. Her exemption strains America’s social contract and further erodes public confidence in government. Worse, perhaps, it encourages cynical contempt for the law among citizens who see the political elite flout laws without consequences.