It Took 19 Tortured Interpretations of the Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

By Rachel Alexander

FBI Director James Comey announced on Tuesday that he won’t recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, despite detailing her wrongful behavior in a lengthy speech. He didn’t believe any of her actions rose to the level of crimes, he said — a claim he could only make by employing tortured interpretations of the law. Nineteen of them.

One of the most unbelievable interpretations of law was Comey’s statement that Clinton and her colleagues were “extremely careless” in how they handled highly classified information. The applicable felony she was facing requires that the subject show “gross negligence” in handling classified information. How is “extreme carelessness” different from “gross negligence?” They sound like the same thing. Comey didn’t explain.

Even if Comey didn’t think her conduct rose to the level of gross negligence in handling classified information, that is not the only charge he could have brought. In 2009, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement as secretary of state, agreeing not to reveal classified information. It included “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling.” If she was “extremely careless,” that would easily qualify as at least a basic standard of negligence, a much lower standard to prove than “gross negligence.” Comey could thus have recommended a low-level misdemeanor charge, like knowingly removing classified information from appropriate, secured storage. However, he didn’t offer a tortured interpretation of the law to explain why he didn’t do this — instead he didn’t mention it at all.......To Read More...