FBI Unwillingness to Charge Hillary in Email Case is Dubious at Best

The FBI’s major reason for not bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton is that it could not prove she “intended” to violate the laws she swore to uphold, even though it found a ton of evidence that in fact she had been “extremely careless” in her handling of State Department classified information. A second reason was that there was no precedent for bringing charges on similar cases in the past without proving “intent.”

Most of America is wondering why “intent” is so important when the statute clearly indicates that “gross negligence” is another equally important standard that could have been used to bring charges, and, for that matter, how such a repeated and according to the FBI “extremely careless” pattern of behavior doesn’t meet the test of “intended” behavior.

Even a cursory review of the facts has many Americans wondering why either standard required by the statute, intent or gross negligence, could not be “reasonably” proved. For example:

1. Mrs. Clinton is a Yale-trained attorney, most likely with above average intelligence, a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a working-knowledge of the laws governing the State Department, which she directed.

2. Mrs. Clinton worked on Nixon’s impeachment case back in the 1970s, which charged President Nixon with “an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.” Consequently, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to assume she would have learned first-hand how one is expected to behave as an executive in the Federal Government. But that was a long time ago and apparently didn’t leave a lasting impression on her.

3. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was charged with the responsibility of securing all State Department intelligence, including her own and from all personnel in her charge. How can violating one of the main responsibilities of her job not be viewed as gross negligence and intentional?

4. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton signed documents requiring her to return all State Department-related documentation when she departed. She not only didn’t return them, she denied having them and subsequently destroyed thousands of work related emails. Isn’t that the quintessence of gross negligence and intent?

6. If all of the foregoing wasn’t enough, Mrs. Clinton completely circumvented standard security measures by using her own unauthorized internet server. That means that all of her work product was unsecured during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Is that not an intentional dereliction of her duty and responsibility to secure classified information?

7. Over the course of years, Mrs. Clinton has denied ever being in possession of any classified information. Should we assume she didn’t know what she was doing, or that she intentionally destroyed evidence? By the way, doesn’t destroying evidence constitute obstruction of justice?

Adding to the cloud of doubt is the timing of this resolution. Why now and why did it take so long for the FBI to arrive at such a half-baked conclusion? Such questions may never be answered. One thing is for sure: If you or I had done half of what Mrs. Clinton did, we’d already be in jail!