Felons – and those aspiring to become felons – today is your day!
Anyone who was trembling in fear for single-handedly jeopardizing the nation’s security can now exhale. Careless is the new criminal!
To pick an example out of the air, let’s say you have a day job handling highly sensitive and top secret info for the U.S. government, and that you run a shady organization (which is also under federal investigation) on the side. There is a lot of highly questionable crossover between your two jobs. You might catch a lot of flack for conflicts of interest, e.g., making decisions favorable to nations that harbor terrorists, in exchange for large cash donations to your shady organization.
What’s a gal to do? Hide the evidence!
Set yourself up with a bootleg server, so that when official records are subpoenaed you can say, “Not me, man!”
If your conflicts of interest raise suspicion and you are the subject of numerous ethical and criminal investigations, things might get a little too hot for comfort. The proper thing to do at this point is to delete anything incriminating (e.g., notes from your top aide informing you that the nation’s enemies have hacked into your bootleg server to access top secret intel). If you get much pushback, you can sigh and say anything you deleted was personal.
You might feel a bit queasy, knowing you personally jeopardized the nation’s security. Not due to concern for the nation, per se, but the adverse effect it may have on your future job prospects. Especially because you are asking the nation to entrust you with its top job and, of course, only 30% of voters say they trust you. (Never was a nickname more apt than Crooked Hillary.) But the FBI has you covered!
It was the responsibility of the FBI to provide a recommendation to the Attorney General for proceeding with your case. After unexpected publicity surrounding a cozy meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, the AG was embarrassed into saying she would accept any recommendation the FBI provided. Though the president had all but promised to absolve you of any responsibility for your actions, it would just look icky to be tried for a felony while running for the presidency.
Fortunately, the FBI is filled with people who are not eager to lose their jobs and become targets of the AG and the president. So they recommend no consequences for you.
But how can they do that? You did, after all, jeopardize national security knowingly and repeatedly throughout your tenure. Unfortunately, there is documented proof that you were warned about this repeatedly. If you don’t think of the FBI as being a haven for the creative, at least give them credit for this very inventive explanation.
Have a look at FBI Director James Comey’s explanation. “All the cases prosecuted [by FBI in the past] involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice.”
Apparently, jeopardizing the nation’s security is only bad if you mean to be disloyal. If you act out of selfishness or to hide conflicts of interests with your shady side organization… well, that is extremely careless, but not criminal. As far as obstructions of justice, I guess they’re giving Crooked Hillary a pass on deleting her incriminating email.
Think of the implications for felons everywhere! If you get wasted and drive home tonight on the wrong side of the highway, don’t worry about your blood alcohol level. Just ask yourself, did you mean to kill the family of four you hit head-on? If the answer is yes, be prepared to do some hard time, buster. But if you didn’t set out to kill anyone, let’s just say you were extremely careless and leave it at that.
Since intent matters more than outcome, I wish Director Comey had outlined why Mrs. Clinton’s original intent of evading Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests was enough to absolve her of guilt in jeopardizing national security.
Or if he could speculate on her intent in disregarding the repeated requests and warnings from her staff and the State Department that she was vulnerable to being hacked?
Or her intent in ignoring the email from her aide Huma Abedin informing her that the server had been hacked and was going to go dark as an emergency measure?