Shame on FBI Director James Comey! He supplied numerous reasons why Hillary Clinton’s reckless handling of her e-mails should have led to a recommendation that she be indicted. But, in parlance that has become common, the head of the FBI punted. Clinton magic, enjoyed repeatedly in the past by husband Bill, seems to have prevailed once more.
In unambiguous terms, Director Comey stated that the former Secretary of State had been “extremely careless” when she used a private computer to send and receive sensitive information. He pointed to the “top secret” classification of numerous e-mails Mrs. Clinton had wrongly sent and received on unprotected instruments. He said the FBI had found “several thousand” e-mails that were not in the material she was required to turn over to the bureau. About whether hostile foreign governments could have accessed what she was sending and receiving, he said it was “possible.”
Comey revealed that Mrs. Clinton had improperly used “several different servers and administrators.” But she has repeatedly admitted to using only one such instrument, even joked about employing a type of e-mail that erases itself shortly after being sent.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Comey pointed to 110 Clinton e-mails that contained varying degrees of classification, even some as high as top secret. But she claimed on numerous occasions that anything marked classified or top secret had been so marked after being sent by her — a complete fabrication.
Comey said “any reasonable person” in the secretary of state post should have known not to send or receive sensitive information on an unsecured personal computer. And he stated his opinion that “hostile actors gained access” to what she was sending and receiving. It is hardly a stretch to claim that the head of the FBI has in fact questioned her ability to reason.
Mrs. Clinton has often excused herself with the claim that she had “no intention” of doing anything wrong. Yet, Comey indicated that a violation of federal law (in this case a felony) occurs when classified information is mishandled “either intentionally or in a negligent way.” Having signed her name to the non-disclosure agreement required of anyone holding such a high post, she knew that she could be prosecuted for what that document states is “negligent handling of Sensitive Compartmented Information.”
With all of this, and more, Comey still recommended against an indictment. If she’s not guilty of any crime and not liable for prosecution, what’s left? Shouldn’t Comey have concluded that she’s not a reasonable person, not competent, and not worthy of being our nation’s president? Instead, he left open a path for her to win the White House.
The known facts indicate she broke laws, repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, endangered fellow Americans, destroyed government records, and lied to the American people and government investigators. Question: If elected to be our nation’s president, should she be given a security clearance? If the answer to that question is either “No” or “Possibly No,” she should quit the race for president.
John F. McManus is president emeritus of The John Birch Society. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission.
