FBI Director James Comey went up to the Hill to answer Congressional inquiries about his stunning decision to lambaste Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of highly sensitive classified data, but then to refrain from recommending that she be criminally charged. And he did not back down on his assertion that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her, because there was a lack of evidence that Clinton showed criminal intent.
Let’s put this in perspective. To begin with, Comey made his public statement before giving his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That effectively precluded Lynch from prosecuting even if she wanted to. And just to ice the cake he torpedoed any possibility of a criminal charge by gratuitously asserting that “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case, making it impossible for any prosecutor to present the case to a jury. Lynch took the cue and within hours announced that neither Clinton nor anyone on her senior staff would be prosecuted over the mishandling of classified data.
So Comey boxed in his boss who was supposed to be responsible for making the decision after listening to his recommendation. He then proceeded to trash the case, making it impossible to prosecute. And he used his office to upbraid Clinton for what he called her “extremely careless” behavior even though he insisted she was not guilty of a crime. It begs the question: Since when is it proper for the FBI Director to use the platform provided by his office to castigate a citizen he himself insists is innocent of a crime?
Comey’s argument hinges on his contention that a lack of evidence of criminal intent on Clinton’s part precluded a criminal charge. This despite the fact that the statute does not require proving intent to sustain a criminal charge; gross negligence is sufficient. Moreover, it is pretty difficult to find intent if you aren’t looking for it, and don’t want to find it.
Consider the elaborate cover-up of the server scheme Clinton set up, complete with the deleted e-mails; the lies about the e-mails she didn’t turn over; the lies about how the e-mails were vetted, and the lies about never having sent or received classified data over her non-secure system. These are evidence of intent to conceal what she knew or should have known, namely that her exclusive use of a private server outside the government system was prohibited. Referencing this type of behavior is typically how a prosecutor would go about demonstrating that the defendant had the requisite guilty mind needed to sustain a criminal conviction. Comey and Co. just ignored it.
For this Congressman Trey Gowdy (R, SC) a former prosecutor, took him to school. He ripped the cover off the fiction being sold by Comey, that intent was required and that there was no evidence of it. Gowdy’s questioning of Comey is on display on the You Tube below, and should be watched.