James Comey officially establishes a two tiered system of law: one for the Clinton’s and one for everyone else




The statement made by James Comey was very curious. He spent 13 minutes explaining why Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted and then spent 2 minutes saying he won’t recommend it. She is clearly guilty, but Comey decided not to recommend charges.

Very curious.

Careers have been lost for much less than than what Clinton did. Meet Stephen Kim:

For instance, last year, after a five-year standoff with federal prosecutors, Stephen Kim, a former State Department official, pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act when he discussed a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2009. Kim did not hand over a copy of the report — he just discussed it, and nothing else — and the report was subsequently described in court documents as a “nothing burger” in terms of its sensitivity. Kim is currently in prison on a 13-month sentence.

And look what’s likely to get Kristian Saucier 5-6 years in prison:

A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.

Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.

Andy McCarthy writes that the FBI rewrote the law to save her ass:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Do read it all.

Comey has established a new legal defense- the “I didn’t mean to” defense. Scooter Libby went to prison for not remembering, although he didn’t mean not to remember. Yet Hillary not meaning to has saved her from prosecution. Comey described Clinton’s actions as “extremely careless.”

Comey’s conclusion, which he insisted no politician in the Obama administration was aware of in advance, amounted to a declaration that Clinton and her aides were ‘extremely careless’ with their handling of classified material, but their actions did not rise to the level of a prosecution.

‘None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system,’ 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.. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.’

If we left it there, the democrat defense is “Yes, she’s an idiot” and both incompetent and lacking in judgment. But we can’t do that. “Extremely careless” and “gross negligence” are interchangeable terms as far as the law is concerned.

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. “The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,” he said. The FBI “clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent — it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense.”

“Gross negligence” meets the threshold for prosecution:

On Twitter, there’s been a lot of “the FBI didn’t find a malicious intent” pushback against criticism, but that statute expressly doesn’t require malicious intent for prosecution. It expressly states that “gross negligence” meets the standard for criminal prosecution, and Comey spent most of the presser making the case for gross negligence.

Then there’s this little legal principleIgnorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance is not a valid excuse for violation of the law. If it were:


Comey’s got some explaining to do.

Despite Comey absolutely torching Clinton’s statements and making clear that she is a liar, Comey saved  the worst part for last. It’s been said that the Clinton’s are above the law and Comey confirmed it.

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.

Whisey Tango Foxtrot?

The real question is how will Comey justify a two tiered system of law- one for the Clinton’s and one for everyone us? Yes, he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.


Meet Bryan Nishimura

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Skookum: If there is an honest Crusader left, your words will be validated.

@Randy: Clinton hasn’t worked for the us government in 30 months
She has no job to lose


Clinton hasn’t worked for the us government in 30 months
She has no job to lose

So… PROMOTE HER TO PRESIDENT?!? That only makes sense in liberal-think.

Yes that is exactly what most Americans think should be done elect her rather than Trump

@John: She is applying for a job and running for the job requires her to have a security clearance. It should be taken away. You really believe that there should be no penalty for not safe guarding our country’s secret information. Guess that says a lot about you!

i am sorry Randy but she is not applying for a job she is running for a political office
A security clearance is not one of the requirements to be POTUS
The requirements are listed in the Constitution of the USA
You really ought to read that document. Sorry again, you are not the one that gets to determine who should and who should not be allowed to become POTUS. You get one vote that is all. And at this time it looks like it will not be cast for the winner
As for “secrets”?
Most things like the identity of the former spy chief of Libiya are already know
Moussa Koussa ? His identity was supposed to be top secret when it was first revealed the right wing noise machine said now his life was in danger.
Really everyone with half a brain knew he was on our payroll as well as other nation’s payrolls

@John: You always miss the point. As POTUS she would have access to even higher level classified documents. With her professed ignorance of security procedures, you would want her to have the opportunity to let the World know our secret information? As I said, you should look at your own character if you are willing to let a professed ignorant person be president.