Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Saved From Prosecution Thanks to FBI's Word Games

FBI Director James Comey fails to understand that extreme recklessness is gross negligence.


Hillary Clinton on Jumbotron
Richie Lomba/Dreamstime.com

Is it worth impairing the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games?

What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it?

How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging "extreme recklessness" while denying "gross negligence" about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?

These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.

The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based without the need of the government to prove intent.

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of Al Qaeda operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey — knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton's failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI's work — told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton's repeated extreme recklessness was not.

It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey's boss — Attorney General Loretta Lynch — unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.

Why do we stand for this?

The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming. The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out "secret" markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations of drone strikes in Pakistan, and names of American intelligence agents operating in the Middle East under cover.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme recklessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime's worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme recklessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Why do we stand for this?


NEXT: It's Official: No Charges for Hillary Clinton over Email Scandal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A lot of people stand for this because “at least she’s not Trump.”


    1. All they had to do this year was put up someone palatable. You had one job, GOP!

      1. For me, that’s the point I’ll remember about 2016. Both parties have internecine fights before their conventions, but they almost always come together and back the nominee. I think that would have happened within the GOP for several of those running, including Cruz and hell, maybe even Paul. But what happened is that the severity of the Jeb! explosion surprised almost everyone, and the GOP voters in the hinterlands gave Trump the most votes which also surprised everyone, including Trump himself.

        1. But what happened is that the severity of the Jeb! explosion surprised almost everyone

          This, rather than making Trump the presumptive nominee, was the GOP’s biggest fuckup of this election. Somehow, Jeb and the GOP’s donor base deluded themselves into thinking that the Bush name wasn’t completely toxic and that he would have a serious shot. They didn’t anticipate that their base wanted nothing to do with another Bush representing them, and projected that anger on to every other regular GOP candidate. When Trump targeted Jeb first and foremost, he made himself the front-runner right there. $100 million later, the GOPe saw their preferred candidate go up in a smoking crater.

          If Jeb had kept his dumb ass out of the race, Trump would be gone by now. Blame the Bushes for once again fucking things up for everyone.

        2. No, we “stand” for it because everyone knows that while it’s important to make a show of punishing secrecy violations, our criminal justice resources must mainly be focused on defending the reputations of powerful and influential members of the community.

          That, incidentally, is why certain forms of speech that nobody likes are criminalized in America, despite any so-called “free-speech” nonsense. Who would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” filed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:


          Indeed, news items on that case reveal that it was prosecuted as a private favor to a New York University department chairman; the NYTimes even quotes the man himself as boasting of the special treatment he was given, on account of his contacts with the FBI (“You know how the F.B.I. says, ‘once you’re one of ours, you’re always one of ours?'” he said. “It’s totally true.'”).

          Or take the cases of the various individuals who have been jailed for writing anti-bank slogans on the sidewalk with chalk. And by contrast, take the Wall Street executives who of course are not to be indicted for any “crimes.” The district attorney of Manhattan was himself a white-collar defense lawyer before he was appointed to his position. All of this is perfectly logical, and perfectly appropriate in a great oligarchical nation such as ours. Not so?

          1. Please change your screen name to “broken record”.
            Raphael Golb deserved what he got.
            Impersonating someone, on line, and making false statements, that are intended to bring dis-repute on the person you are impersonating is slander, and possibly libel, and is not “satire”.

      2. put up someone palatable

        Like who?

        Seriously. This is a spurious charge. Outside of banning Trump from participating, what’s the solution here? Trump won precisely because a majority of R primary voters are sick of the shit sandwiches the GOPe offers.

        Now, Trump sucks in his own way for sure. But who can blame those voters for the crap they’ve had to put up with even since the Bush years?

        1. plurality, but yeah

      3. I think the problem was that the field was simply too wide on the (R) side this time around.

        1. no, it wasn’t too wide, it was far too shallow. NONE of the schmucks put forward by the Party Hacks were worth a tinker’s dam. NONE. Walker maybe, but he got washed out early. The former Gov of Ohio showed his colours during his stint as guv. Ohio hated him, with good reason., Bush? Hah. A party machine hack. They even trotted out Romney for a spell…. thankfully HE slithered back into the woodwork quickly. Rand had his good points, but some scary ones as well, though I’d certainly have given him MY vote had he done better. But he got the same Bum’s Rush his Dad did last two go-rounds. The party have a mortal fear of both of them, and, from their warped perspective, with good reason.

      4. But the GOP didn’t put up Trump. The party, the establishment, and the majority of the voters were against him – but that’s how the process played out.

        I’ve had foreign born friends ask me, “Why did the Republicans allow Trump to even be on the ballot?” because in their countries that’s how it works. Here, the people can put a person on the ballot and make him the nominee without the cooperation or consent of the party.

        And that’s from a guy who really doesn’t like Trump and voted for Cruz.

      5. “All they had to do this year was put up someone palatable. You had one job, GOP!”

        It’s ridiculous to blame the GOP. You might as well blame Libertarians for not backing Rand Paul to the hilt.

    2. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do_________ http://www.trends88.com

  2. No, its not worth it, but that didn’t change the actions that they took.

  3. Comey and Lynch’s malfeasance isn’t binding upon the future heads of the DoJ and the FBI. What’s the statute of limitations on violations of the espionage act?


    1. But if Hillary’s elected the future heads will owe their allegiance to her. If Trump’s elected she may go to jail, but the Left would call it a political prosecution.

      1. “but the Left would call it a political prosecution.”

        You know, with the amount of things the Left calls Trump on a daily basis… do you think he’d even care??

        1. Trump is a Clinton plant.

  4. Most people I talk to are cool with the it’s not what you know but who you know meme and the Clintons know a lot of people. So they’ll skate. No one cares.

  5. The FBI said they were totally not told by the AG who totally wasn’t told by Clinton to tell the FBI to tell the AG there’s no case here. Time to move on, everyone.

    1. Half of the tweets I see from the retardsphere are proclaiming that she was “proven innocent”.

  6. >Why do we stand for this?

    Because the only solution in a nation this far gone is revolution, and we’ve forgotten how to do that. That’s not my attempt at fortune-cookie wisdom, it’s a plea: Someone please tell us how to have a Second American Revolution before it’s too late and we end up with an American Reich.

    1. You’re right to be worried. We’re one terrorist attack away (but something more than a lone gunman and 50 dead) from an American Reich. Unfortunately, although the education process from the likes of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Reason, etc. is a solution, it’s too little, too late apparently. Revolutions are rarely bloodless.

      1. One more reason why I’m glad I live in Texas. I won’t say I love Abbott or anything, but he’s better than Perry and this definitely is a step in the right direction if the U.S. want’s to avoid Civil War 2.0.

      2. He forgot to repeal the 17th Amendment, and returning election of US Senators to the state governments.

        1. Ya. I think that would be better than most of his specifics. It would take a while to kick in. But would be definitely game-changing over time. IMO.

          I don’t just want it returned to the state governments either. I want it mandated that senators are chosen by a vote of state legislative bodies ( not popular votes).

        2. I feel that a return to only allowing owners of real property to vote is as important as returning the election of US Senators to the State Legislatures. The Nation was more stable and the General Government was far more responsible before government became a fad driven gimme fest.

    2. Avoid mob action, get elected in the states, call a constitutional convention, and don’t just amend, but dissolve the entire present federal government. Reformat and get a more secure national OS.

      1. Just who do you think is capable of writing a better constitution? Lynch? SCOTUS? Trump? The people???

        This is stupid beyond belief.

        1. Maybe you try to rewrite it before the constitutional convention? I mean, what the fuck is your suggestion, throw your hands up and bitch? At least the guy is trying to figure out a path. Maybe it is ridiculous. I’m sure back in the day, people thought it was ridiculous to throw out the British, but it got done anyways. The point is, there is reason to believe the current system sucks balls, and could use some improvements. Am I qualified to rewrite the Constitution? Of course not. But I’d sure be willing to weigh in on ideas for the alternative. I don’t think the current document has a lot of flaws, but we’ve drifted too far from it’s intent. Maybe there’s another way to reset? I doubt Trump or Hillary are going to work on that…

        2. It’s fine to just tweak the blueprint with a couple of key structural improvements; however, the building is hopelessly compromised and must be torn down and rebuilt according to the new specs.

          All existing government agencies should be disbanded, and everyone serving the federal government, in any branch and in any capacity, should be prohibited from holding office in the new government.

      2. An Article 5 convention can ONLY propose amendments.

        1. You mean like this?

          AMENDMENT NO. 2786

          Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

          IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES–111th Cong., 1st Sess.

          H. R. 3590

          To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

          November 19, 2009

          Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

          Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)


          Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:


          (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’.

          (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

          Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.


      3. Rewrite the entire Constitution? Why? We don’t use the one we have.

        Disband the Alphabet Soup Agencies? Works for me, they’re not actually in the Constitution anyway. They ultimately make law regardless of what Article 1, Section 1 says. Can ’em all.

        Tell the SCOTUS to shove their precedents and actually use the Constitution? Absolutely. They spend more time egotistically relying on their own previous decisions than on the Constitution.

        Remind the Congress that their authority is limited to what the Constitution grants them and no more? Beyond a doubt. Most of what they do is beyond their Constitutional grant of authority.

        Point out to the President that his directives lack the force of law? Sure. If he wants to tell government workers that it’s casual Friday, that’s ok, but if he wants to act as if his edicts have the force of law he should fold it until it’s all corners and shove it where the sun never shines. The Constitution does not grant the office of the President the authority to modify existing law, much less make law.

        Let’s try using the Constitution we have before we consider allowing the current crop of craven political hacks to make a new one.

    3. “Second American Revolution”

      Ultimately it wouldn’t be pretty. The US military’s weaponry greatly outclasses the citizenry. Hit-and-run tactics would be wholly necessary, as would be blending in with the civilian general population. The best course of action would be quietly gaining supporters then launching a massive, coordinated strike on US military targets and the capital along with the president and congress simultaneously. That MIGHT cause enough discord to obtain the weapons necessary. The biggest risks to that, however, being that every person you add to your conspiracy increases the chances of someone leaking information and/or doing something stupid.

      Also you’d need a strong social network presence to counteract the media and spin your own narrative and cover up the less pleasant aspects of revolution. This would be necessary for any revolution to remain tenable. You’d need a masterful propagandist.

      Even with all that, chances of success aren’t great. The /best/ strategies for fighting the US involve some pretty shady shit, not sure any rational person would want to walk down that path.

      1. Well you assume that it’s a coup de main instead of a coup d’etat.

      2. Do you really think it would be hard for the civilian population to blend in with the civilian population?

        What percentage of the military will remember that their oath is ultimately to the Constitution and not to some petty tyrant in the White House?

        There are a lot of veterans among the civilian population who remember how the game is played. They’ve even had practice.

        How many of the Vietnam era veterans would prefer to die an honorable death fighting for liberty for their children and grandchildren rather than wait around and find out which form of cancer is going to send them moaning into the darkness?

        I think there would be a price for refreshing the Tree of Liberty, but it is hardly an impossible task. How could a rational person not rise to that occasion? Do you really find it rational to lie down meekly and be walked upon by tyrants? How could that possibly end well?

  7. Why do we stand for this?

    Because we have no choice.

      1. Symbolic, transitory, and futile.

        1. Also, good luck trying this in front of the White House as a protest against the national government. It won’t go over well with the Secret Service.

          1. If there were thousands, WTF could the SS do?

            1. Call in the Army, for one.

            2. “If there were thousands, WTF could the SS do?”

              Declare the entire area around The White House a protected zone.

  8. Marine’s defense for disseminating classified information will cite Hillary Clinton’s case


    1. Bowe said it is impossible to reconcile President Obama’s statement that Clinton’s intentional act of setting up a secret, unsecured email server did not detract “from her excellent ability to carry out her duties” while Brezler received a “completely opposite finding? involving infinitely less sensitive and limited information.”

      Emphasis added. Didn’t Comey say there was no evidence of intent? I confuse.

      1. He also wagged his finger at us and said that none of us proles should think we can get away with this kind of shit. We will see how that flies.

      2. Comey also said that GMail was MORE secure than the server Clinton used. I assume the same could be said for the Yahoo mail that Brezler used.

        I hope his defense subpoenas Comey to testify.

      3. She intentionally set up the server. She intentionally evading oversight. She unintentionally damaged national security.

    2. “Marine’s defense for disseminating classified information will cite Hillary Clinton’s case”

      You are just assuming that the law will apply equally. Clearly, it’s not. So, he’ll just get slapped down. The only way he’d have a chance would be if he could manage to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. And by that time, Hillary will have her new appointment.

  9. America has no rule of law.

    This is retarded.

    Fuck Hillary. Evil cunt.

    1. Boy oh boy, though, if this was a low-level official they’d go all ‘we’re tough on crime’ and ‘we can’t stand for this in a civil society’ and all that bull shit asshole prosecutors say.

      They’re all full of shit from Obama on down to the little prosecutor. Full. Of. Shit.

  10. FBI Director James Comey fails to understand that extreme recklessness is gross negligence.

    Oh, he understands just fine. If it was a peasant without political connections, he would have recommended enough charges to put them in prison for the rest of their life if they didn’t take a plea bargain.

    Principals, not principles.

  11. Comey was likely ordered to clear Hillary of all charges, but he anted to make sure that the people were advised of exactly what happened. I think he did the best job of spreading the truth as he could without committing career suicide.

    1. I think you’re right.

      We were told that Comey was made of better stuff, and would not bend in that manner, but he is frail and human like the rest of us. Comey is not made of the same material as the founders. He laid out the case against Hillary, even though he could not take her before a jury.

      We’re screwed. It’s all down hill from here.

      1. If he was half a man he would have very strongly recommended an indictment and then resigned in protest of Lynch and Obamas interference in the case. But he’s scum, just like the rest. He could always get a good job with a Red law firm.

        1. Even after resignation, he would have an instant book deal. A different career, if you will.

      2. If I was one of those Congressmen, after Comey said what a great investigative body the FBI was, I would have said: “There is a large number of conservative groups, targeted by the IRS, who would disagree with you on that.”
        He was in charge when the FBI found that IRS denying tax-exempt status to conservative groups was “low-level incompetence” and incompetence is not a crime.
        It is more like the Federal Bureau of Protecting the Executive Branch.

    2. “….as he could without committing career suicide.”

      Comey’s career is over. He was entirely too honest about what Hillary actually did. She is not a forgiving person.

  12. They just left the door wide-open for Trump to base his general election campaign on government corruption, privilege, and incompetence.

    1. He and Johnson should just hammer and hammer and hammer at this.

      1. And Johnson has apparently already punted

        1. More mush from the wimp.

    2. People can tolerate a rogue. What people can’t tolerate is a rogue who gets over and brags about it. I am always way too optimistic about things, but I still believe that the country will refuse to elect that bitch after this. Yeah, I know, i am naive.

      1. The thing is the left could care less. They see this as another example of republican lack of principles and wasting time attacking a good person that care for them.

    3. Corruption, privilege and incompetence are badges of honor if you are on the left. After all, it’s all about principals, not principles.

    4. That’s Allen West’s take.

    5. This. Trump’s appeal is to angry people who believe that the government as a whole is an insiders game. Clinton and Obama just handed him Exhibit A.

  13. He understands the difference. He just doesn’t care. He wasn’t really saying “extreme carelessness”. He was saying “fuck you that is why”.

    1. If Comey was a marginally better man, he would have ended his press release with “those are the facts of the case, it is not the responsibility of the FBI to prosecute, I leave that decision to the AG”.

      1. I say that some “friends” of Hillary’s stopped by to “have breakfast” with Comey’s family while he went to make the announcement. Breakfast was over once he had said what thy wanted him to say.

        1. Doubtful, since he basically called her a fucking liar who would be jailed if she was a little person. If you’re going to put someone under your thumb, you don’t have them hand ammunition to your political opponent while they’re at it.

      2. This.

  14. Engineers collect all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

    Politicians get to a conclusion first before reaching for evidence.

    It is safe to say that DC is not exactly full of engineers.

    1. Roughly speaking, there are 41 self-admitted career politicians in Congress for every one engineer, and 110 career politicians for every one scientist.

      There are 25 lawyers for every one engineer, and 67 for every one scientist.

      I’m sure the ratios are even worse in the unelected side of government.

  15. whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton’s repeated extreme recklessness was not

    Look, those other cases were completely different. None of them involved someone named Hillary Clinton. So her situation is unprecedented, because no one with her name and SSN and DOB has ever been in that situation before. How can you expect the FBI and DOJ to to navigate these uncharted legal waters?

  16. Really disappointed that the judge has decided to play loose and goosey with the facts of the other cases just to vilify the old hag. For instance, the sub case involved lies made to investigators as well as overt destruction and hiding of the electronic devices involved. Perhaps if the guy had just fessed up in first place he would have been reprimanded like others in similar cases had been. See Martha Steward for advice on not fibbing to investigators.

    The closest similar case to HRC is John Deutch, former head spook, who was far more negligent and at worse was going to cop to a misdemeanor plea. I think FBI should have just kicked the can up the line and said these are the facts, prosecute as you deem fit. But in the end, this dream of felonies and jail time were never going to happen. What this will do though is have a profoundly negative effect on who will get a security clearance in any future HRC admin.

    1. What this will do though is have a profoundly negative effect on who will get a security clearance in any future HRC admin.

      Why? Hillary can and will just order that the clearances be issued.

    2. I can’t find any case concerning a sonar screen. There is a case about taking pics of the reactor and other sensitive spaces which is what I think you are referring to.

  17. He should have been like every other dick cop in America and say “Tell it to the judge”. The police (fbi) enforce the law, not interpret the law. Of course his drug money laundering days from hsbc and cutting a sweetheart deal with Lynch back then had absolutely nothing to do with today’s misdeeds, plus I’m sure he has an aversion to being suicided by the cia.

    1. The FBI investigates moreso than enforces

      Unlike cops, they rarely make summary arrests or engage in what we commonly think of as enforcement actions… with exceptions like murder at Ruby Ridge

      Almost always, they investigate investigate investigate

      It’s US Attorneys who ENFORCE the law

  18. The more I think about it, the more I believe Comey did an exceptional job of burying the whole national security/email scandal a full six feet under. Consider:

    (a) He not only recommended that Hillary not be prosecuted, he recommended (apparently) that nobody whatsoever be prosecuted in any way, for primary or secondary (perjury, obstruction) charges in connection with the entire scheme. Thus, there will be no bothersome trials of anyone at all to disrupt the Hillary campaign or administration.

    (b) He immunized several(?) key witnesses, and the deals undoubtedly included NDA provisions, so that they cannot tell what they know. Again, there will be no disruptions of the Hillary campaign or administration on that front, either.

    (c) He pre-emptively leaked what they found on Hillary, wrapped in a statement that it wasn’t criminal. Subsequent leaks by pissed off FBI agents (if there are any) are now officially old news that can be disregarded.

    Hillary herself couldn’t have done a better job of consigning the entire scandal to the ash-heap of history.

    1. Paging barfman!

    2. Actually, he didn’t recommend no perjury. He just said that Congress had yet to ask him to look into potential perjury charges stemming from Hillary’s Congressional testimony.

  19. Section 793 (f)(2) states that having knowledge of information being removed from its proper place of custody and not reporting it is a crime. Is an unsecured private server the proper place of custody for SAP information?

    1. (C) Yes.

  20. political justice really only figuratively political expert engineering in order to more freely determine its own rules
    jasa seo bandung | jasa seo murah bergaransi

  21. Judge, you’re mad as a March hare. You’ve always been a fan favorite; count me as one. But you embarrassed yourself since last year, only to double down in the springtime with nutty premonitions of indictment. Makes people wonder how long you’ve been around or if you got hit in the head. The forecasts of her losing the nomination and facing incarceration were like silly season ticket holders taunting the opposing sports fan.
    And to your, “Why do we stand for this?” Huh? Are you joking, Andrew?!!! Really? We’ve been standing for this since the freaking dawn of time, clinging to our promises of the next guy who will be the honorable savior. We’re a nation of men, not laws. Always was, always will be, in spite of our own delusional lying, to ourselves. For Americans anyway, we’ve watched this three-ring spectacle for a couple centuries, excusing our corrupt noblemen when they wave the right flag. How do the folks call it at Reason? Team Red or Team Blue. Perfect metaphor. By strict reading of the Constitution you could have impeached every damn one of the 43 king wannabes we’ve had. Every…single…one.
    But maybe the next one will be honorable. Maybe the next bureaucracy will do us a solid. Maybe the next regime will be kinder and gentler to its subjects. We wouldn’t want to think for ourselves.
    Wake up, Judge. And please, for the sake of my sanity, stop acting surprised.

  22. Was it my imagination, or didn’t the New York Times run an article a few days ago about how Hillary was considering retaining Lynch as Attorney General if Hillary wins?

    1. Is the AG not going to be getting a paycheck? Is that not a monetary bribe?

  23. Why do we stand for this? How can we NOT stand for this? How can we, the people force rule of law on a lawless government?

  24. Any of us would be indicted for what she did.

    Heck, the lying alone to the Feds would result in a prison Sentence

    Ask Martha Stewart

    Btw, 3 acquittals so far in Baltimore!!!

    Judge has made it clear the prosecutor is a piece of shit and we already have disbarment potential and proceedings under way

    Due process FTW!!

  25. “sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home.”
    Oh come on Judge, she was also his mistress.

  26. RE: Hillary Clinton Saved From Prosecution Thanks to FBI’s Word Games
    FBI Director James Comey fails to understand that extreme recklessness is gross negligence.

    Many of the FBI agents are lawyers or went to law school.
    Therefore it should come as no surprise that the FBI wold use words to defend Heil Hitlary.
    It was either that or use their guns on the congressional committee members.
    Some decisions are easier than others.

  27. Comey had the temerity to assert that “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against Hillary. Those were blatant lies; the examples Napolitano cited are just three of many. Comey should be impeached; this is a textbook illustration of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  28. I know its a BIG “if”, but IF we manage to seat a government bent upon preserving this nation, I believe that new administration, after some serious house cleaning and taking out a few dumpster bins full of trash, should reopen this investigation. Since she has not formally been charged, she has not yet been put in jeopardy by the laying of charges. Thus the investigation can be reopened, or begun anew, and not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Not that that would stop the current band of misfits from doing it to any of we mere mundanes……

  29. if any particular republican on that committee had half a brain, they would’ve taken two or three lesser known names that have been prosecuted for this sort of thing and asked comey if he knew who they were.

  30. uptil I saw the paycheck four $4289 , I have faith that my mom in-law could actualie bringing in money part-time at there computar. . there sisters neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about thirteen months and by now paid for the mortgage on there condo and bought a brand new Alfa Romeo .????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  31. somehow Clinton’s repeated extreme recklessness was not.


    She didn’t “recklessly” cause the classified material to be removed from secure locations, she did it completely knowingly and intentionally.

    If you forget and leave a document in a hotel room, you’ve been reckless. If you assign underlings to pipe classified documents out of government system to your own personal server, you’ve taken *intentional* actions. There was no “oopsie, I didn’t mean that to happen” involved.

    I can believe that she was simply retarded, and hadn’t *intended* to hand over all the top level classified communications of the State Department to every intelligence service on earth. *That* failure could accurately be called “gross negligence”.

    But the server setup itself was entirely *intentional*, an *intentional* removal of Clinton’s emails from secure government servers. That was the whole *point*.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.