Comey's Layup for Clinton
Reopened just so he could exonerate her again right before the election?
Over the weekend, Democrats and Republicans retreated to their initial assessments of FBI Director James Comey after he retreated to his initial exoneration of Hillary Clinton three months ago.
However, in my analysis 10 days ago regarding Comey’s “reopened investigation” into Hillary Clinton, I emphasized this caveat: It was possible this was an eleventh hour play for Comey to exonerate Clinton — again. I based this assessment on Barack Obama’s highly suspect praise of Comey right after the re-opened case announcement.
Then, I wrote that Obama’s affirmation of Comey could mean he already knows that Comey will announce, by the end of the week, that the FBI has completed a preliminary review of the new emails and that Comey will, again, clear Clinton of any wrongdoing.
Indeed, Comey did just that in a follow-up letter to Congress Sunday: “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton. I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short-period of time.” (Apparently, his investigators were able to read 650,000 emails in seven days — that’s 92,857 a day…)
For the record, Clinton should have been prosecuted for attempting to hide her official communications from the public under 18 U.S. Code § 793. In July, Comey said Clinton and her aides “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” on multiple unsecured devices, and it was clear those devices had been breached. But Comey said he could not prosecute because he could not establish Clinton’s “intent” to violate the law. (Seriously, he said that.) Note that Section (f)1 of 18 U.S. Code § 793 provides for prosecution as a result of “gross negligence,” and “intent” is not a requirement.
So, what to conclude about this latest political charade? Either Comey is profoundly inept, or his “case re-opened” notification to Congress was a lay-up for Clinton’s campaign — to revisit her corrupt off-grid communications just so he could exonerate her again after absentee voting had ended and before the general election vote.
And that leaves us right where we started regarding the Clintons’ criminal enterprises, as I noted last Friday. Even though there are still ongoing Clinton Foundation investigations, if Clinton is elected Obama can pardon her, and a sitting president can’t be criminally prosecuted, only impeached. There are not enough Democrats in the Senate with sufficient integrity to accomplish an impeachment.
Our nation has survived two World Wars and a catastrophic Great Depression. Can our country survive the abject corruption of another Clinton administration in the wake and ruins of two Obama terms — and the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will shred our Constitution?
The nation will survive but the Republic, and its foundation of Liberty as affirmed in our Constitution, is on the eve of suffering the most significant insult in American history.