In his decision yesterday not to recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey put a final nail in the coffin of the rule of law.
Actually, it had been lying in state for some time before that, but now we can jam it in the box, drop it in the hole, and throw clods over it. The law is as dead as a dodo in the Country Formerly Known as the United States of America.
I’d been waiting for the other shoe to drop on Hillary’s email server, but it took a lot longer than I thought it would. My expectations were based on an article in The Washington Times that was published on January 12, 2016. It was written by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.
I’ll quote it at greater length later in this post, but here are two relevant excerpts:
Within two weeks to 60 days, the bureau [FBI] will recommend to the Justice Department that Hillary and certain of her aides face charges for the way they have handled classified information on her server. My sources tell me that the bureau already has the case “locked they are building a case that is unassailable.”
Hmm… Looks like the case got assailed after all. I’ll give you three guesses who the assailants were (humming “The Arkansas Traveler” under my breath while I wait).
And Mr. Comey was reportedly “incorruptible”:
The FBI’s director, James Comey, has a reputation for being incorruptible. He wanted to indict Gen. David Petraeus on far fewer charges than his investigators have come up with on Hillary. Now his chief of staff has reportedly said that the bureau plans to seek indictments of Hillary and her aides despite the politics of the case. One source told me, “the bureau doesn’t care about politics.” This case is seen as a national security matter.
But there are various shades of corruption. It seems obvious that someone made Mr. Comey an offer he couldn’t refuse. He may, for example, have been presented with incontrovertible evidence that his career would come to an abrupt and permanent end if he were to recommend an indictment.
Maybe he did something a little bit indiscreet back when he was in college, something that he had forgotten about. But surprise! There were photos.
Or he could have broken some federal law at some point. God knows, we all have. I always assume that I’ve broken five or six laws every morning before I’ve even had my coffee. Laws that I know nothing about — but ignorance of the law is no excuse!
There are so many laws now; everyone breaks some of them all the time. That comes in handy for the feds — anyone can be prosecuted at any time if need be. It’s now a political decision who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t. You or I? Maybe. Hillary? Never.
That’s what it’s like to live without the rule of law.
But Mr. Comey also has a wife and five kids… Nice little family you got there, Jim — be a shame if anything happened to it.
Yep, there are a lot of forms that unrefusable offer could have taken.
According to Mr. Tyrrell’s account, there would be serious repercussions if Hillary were allowed to escape scot-free:
If it is ignored, the fear within the intelligence community is that it will be impossible to prosecute future defendants being charged with the mishandling of classified information. The intelligence agencies would mutiny if Hillary were given a pass…
If he is right about this — and given how wrong he was about everything else, I have my doubts — we’re still in for some surprises. I’m not sure what the intelligence community can do without the help of the Justice Department, but if I were an elected official in the federal executive, I definitely wouldn’t want the career bureaucrats in the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and the DIA pissed off at me. They’ve collected a lot of information on a lot of, ahem, sensitive topics. Probably not even Hillary knows exactly what they’ve got deep in the bowels of their billion-yottabyte databases.
So we could be in for some entertaining times. But more than likely we’ll just roll through the conventions and the silly season into a face-off between Hillary and Trump this fall. And I don’t think I’d put money on Trump — the odds against him are probably about the same as those against the Brexit a few weeks ago…
Here’s the lengthier quote from R. Emmett Tyrrell’s January 12 column:
This week, three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton spent valuable time during an appearance on “Face the Nation” swatting down stories that surfaced Friday. Early on Friday morning when most Americans are asleep, save second-story men, the State Department released thousands of Hillary’s emails. In one she seemed to be asking her aide, Jake Sullivan, to send her classified information across a “non-secure” line. That is to say, across her personal server. She was impatient to read the email’s contents and could not wait for it to be sent on a secure line. That strikes a lot of those who follow such matters as a clear breach of the law regarding the handling of classified information, or perhaps I should say another clear breach of the law regarding the use of classified information. On “Face the Nation,” Hillary termed the growing imbroglio a “non-issue.”
Well, as with a lengthening list of problems facing Hillary, we shall see. On Monday the respected investigative reporter for Fox News, Catherine Herridge, reported that “The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, according to three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.” I sense there is going to be more of these stories.
Late last week I wrote in The American Spectator that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was working on the indictment of Hillary. Within two weeks to 60 days, the bureau will recommend to the Justice Department that Hillary and certain of her aides face charges for the way they have handled classified information on her server. My sources tell me that the bureau already has the case “locked they are building a case that is unassailable. “ And another source said the case that the FBI has built was ready two weeks ago.
The evidence involves material from Hillary’s server that the FBI has gathered in the course of its months-long investigation of her and her staff. Last week others also weighed in, most notably former prosecutor Joseph diGenova. From everything I can tell, this story is going to get worse for Hillary. I assume Ms. Herridge agrees with me.
The charges will consist of some of the following:
- Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
- Destruction of government records.
- Lying to federal agents.
- Lying under oath.
- Obstruction of justice.
One source told me that, “the [leadership] of the FBI is deeply engaged in the investigation.” And another said the bureau has “no choice” but to ask Attorney General Loretta Lynch for indictments. The FBI’s director, James Comey, has a reputation for being incorruptible. He wanted to indict Gen. David Petraeus on far fewer charges than his investigators have come up with on Hillary. Now his chief of staff has reportedly said that the bureau plans to seek indictments of Hillary and her aides despite the politics of the case. One source told me, “the bureau doesn’t care about politics.” This case is seen as a national security matter.
If it is ignored, the fear within the intelligence community is that it will be impossible to prosecute future defendants being charged with the mishandling of classified information. The intelligence agencies would mutiny if Hillary were given a pass. Said Mr. diGenova last week, “The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves basically to revolt if [the attorney general] refuses to bring charges.” This is apparently one of those processes that takes on a life of its own.
Why will the indictments be recommended in the time frame I have mentioned? Justice Department policies mandate making such decisions as far in advance of elections as possible. If there are conflicting winds blowing in the FBI or Department of Justice, they must avoid the appearance of being motivated by partisan politics. So 60 days is about as long as the bureau or department can wait. On the other hand, there are those Democrats who would like the action to begin this month. That would allow Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry to toss their hats in the ring.
This brings to mind a curious statement by Mr. Biden just the other day. On Jan. 7 quite out of the blue Joe said to CNN, “I regret it every day” — “it” being his decision not to run for the presidency. But after saying his decision not to run was the right decision for his family, he went on to say he would be “staying deeply involved.” What could that mean? Does he know something we are not to know about the doings of the FBI and its 150 agents now working on the Hillary case?