Wow. Just wow.
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.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
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.
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.
Let me see if I can help.
She tells you the intent. Her argument, “convenience”. She didn’t want to have a separate phone. That’s who wants to be President of the United States of America. Someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying a separate phone and is more than willing to disregard federal law in order to do it.
Some would argue that a lawyer, having got her break prosecuting Richard M. Nixon:
Would have a greater appreciation for obstructing federal law regarding personal communications.
Or, one could assume she’s not that stupid, as I do. And, recognized that is she used a single device for communications, and it was on a federal server, ALL of her communications would have been subject to Freedom of Information Act laws. However, if they were on her own private server, they in theory, would not. I don’t think she was the least bit concerned with her communications regarding her official business being accessed. But, her private emails might have presented a real problem.
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Timesinvestigation released Tuesday.
That’s the kind of stuff Hillary definitely would not want subjected to FoIA if she was peddling influence in her official capacity for her own personal gain.
James Comey doesn’t even want to think about that. Actually, I’m sure he did. He answers directly to Loretta Lynch, who got her big break in 1999, being appointed as a US Attorney, by, you guessed it I’m sure, Bill Clinton.
No conflict there.
So, Comey did all he could do. He said she’s guilty as hell, but he can’t prosecute her. Loretta Lynch has already said she will only do what Comey tells her to do.
The fix was already in.
Later the same day, Hillary and Obama were more than happy to violate even more federal campaign laws:
Who pays for Obama and Air Force One to campaign for Hillary?
I’m guessing you did, whether you want to or not.
Taking bids now on whether Comey pursues this or not: