FBI Director James Comey, in his July 5 presentation, concluded that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but that his investigation “did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Julian Assange, from his Ecuadoran embassy refuge in London, has been asserting that Hillary’s instruction to an aide (Jake Sullivan, June 17, 2011) “to turn the talking points into nonpaper w no identifying heading [that is, remove any security classification heading] and send nonsecure” is the clear smoking gun of intent. According to Assange, this email alone is enough to indict Clinton, but, as he correctly predicted, “that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.” Notably, Assange’s statement was carried by the Kremlin propaganda arm, RT.
The ongoing discussion of whether “gross negligence” rather than “purposeful conduct” should have triggered a Comey indictment recommendation ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Does not Clinton’s decision to use an unprotected “homebrew” server exclusively throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State prove intent to evade and violate federal laws and regulations concerning the treatment of classified information? The secretive Clinton did not want the public messing in her business, both private and public; hence, the private server in her home bathroom.
With James Comey falling on his sword for the political class, the White House and Justice Department are spared the ignominy and notoriety of letting Clinton off. Had Comey recommended to indict, the media and DNC would no longer label him as a “respected professional” but as the notorious Ken Starr of law enforcement. Comey had much to lose by not going along.
Attorney General, Loretta Lynch hastened to declare the investigation closed. Congressional hearings will yield little but democratic obstruction and republican grandstanding.
So Hillary Clinton has cleared the primary hurdle and the FBI hurdle. There remains the Vladimir Putin hurdle. Despite the report’s lack of “direct evidence” of a successful hack “by hostile actors,” Comey states that: “Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact.” As the New York Times put it: “And that would have meant that tracking the trail of electronic breadcrumbs back to her server would have been a pretty simple task. After that, their ability to break in would have been a mix of skill and luck, but they had plenty of time to get it right.”
There appears to be significant overlooked news in Comey’s statement. To date, we have known only that the Romanian hacker, Guccifer, breached Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal’s account. Comey, however, states that hostile actors (plural) gained access to the accounts (plural) of Clinton’s regular contacts. So the FBI has evidence of more than one successful hack of accounts of Clinton associates. In this light, Comey’s statement that a hack of Clinton’s account was “possible” is a gross and peculiar understatement.
Note that there have been rumblings from the Kremlin, despite the usual official denials, hinting they have Clinton’s emails (including those she deleted). These would either be released by the presumed Kremlin client, Wikileaks, or held back for blackmail of a President Clinton.
The release of Hillary’s public and deleted private emails directly or indirectly by the Kremlin would drive home to an inattentive voting public that Hillary’s intent and “extreme carelessness” have inflicted serious harm on the national security of the United States. The most telling phrase of the Comey presentation: the FBI would not recommend indictment to the Department of Justice, although, “in similar circumstances, person(s) who engaged in this activity … are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” In other words, Hillary Clinton, caught red-handed in violation of national security laws, is being let off because she is Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate. Laws apply to ordinary people, not to the Clintons.