The lingering question is “intent”.
Let’s connect a couple of dots today …
I’ve been wondering why Comey re-opened the email investigation, why it will take awhile to resolve itself, and what the outcome will be.
A couple of occurrences brought things into focus for me.
First, my son and I were chatting about how the Clintons always push to the legal edge of the law (or further), but don’t leave many fingerprints… and certainly no smoking guns.
I opined that they’re like the mob bosses who direct activities with ambiguity and deniability.
You know, like the “it would be too bad if he had an accident” line used to order a hit.
The 2nd occurrence was Obama weighing in on Comey yesterday for being premature in issuing his letter and reprimanding that “it’s not the way we do things around here.”
How do “we” do things around here?
Got me thinking back to Comey’s July non sequitur ruling: she broke the law … no direct evidence of intent … so, no charges.
Since then, it has become clear that the law in question does not require proof of intent.
To the contrary, it was written so that intent would be immaterial
So, where did Comey get the idea?
How did I ever miss this one?
Back in April, President Obama was interviewed on FoxNews.
At the time, according to the NY Times
President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.
First, he seemed ok with pronouncing before the investigation was complete … even though it wasn’t the way “we” do business around here.
More important, look at what he said.
See an uncanny resemblance to Comey’s ruling?
Might have thought that he was giving some deniable direction to Lynch and Comey
OK, now fast forward.
Since Comey declared “no intent”, he has looked like a fool.
A State dept video was found with Hillary lecturing State department employees on cybersecurity and telling them to only use secure networks for communications.
Note: Clinton told the FBI that she couldn’t recall being briefed or being aware of the State Dept. policies on the matter.
And, there’s a stack of WikiLeaked emails among Clinton’s staff re: how they tried to warn her about the implications of the home-brew server.
Then, there’s the thing about the 33,000 emails.
Bottom line: Looks like there’s plenty of proof of intent … but, since much of it is WikiLeaked, it can’t be used in court.
Can’t be used in court, but if I’ve seen it, Comey has seen it, and he knows that he has been played … from the top-down.
To “fix” the obvious mis-carriage of justice, Comey had to find a way to re-open the case.
Now, with Huma’s email stash –- which likely includes some of the deleted 33,000 – the FBI just has to find “clean” copies of the incriminating WikiLeaks that build the (unnecessary) case for intent.
That’ll take some time … when it happens, things will get really interesting!