Millions of Americans were furious this week when FBI Director James Comey announced that Hillary Clinton will not be charged for her use of a personal email server during her time as Secretary of State. Now, it has been revealed that the FBI literally rewrote federal law so that Clinton could stay out of jail.
Andrew McCarthy is a former prosecutor who is a “longtime friend” of Comey’s. However, in a new piece for the National Review, McCarthy slammed Comey, saying that he misinterpreted the law and that Clinton was clearly chargeable.
“There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18),” McCarthy wrote, according to Conservative Tribune.
“With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust,” he continued. “Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.”
McCarthy argued that many of Comey’s statements were incorrect, especially those involving intent.
“All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice,” Comey said during Tuesday’s press conference. “We do not see those things here.”
McCarthy couldn’t disagree with this more.
“Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States,” he wrote. “In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.”
“The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence,” McCarthy added. “I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.”
What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.