Cynics are vindicated as FBI recommends no charges for Hillary Clinton: Daily Bullshit, July 5, 2016 (updated)

Updated for more on Hillary Clinton’s email controversy.


Hillary Clinton

Experts were especially disdainful of the FBI’s finding that highly classified information turned up in emails that Clinton sent and received on her unsecured server. That alone was in violation of the Foreign Affairs Manual, a comprehensive set of State Department policies, that, among other restrictions, require that a different computer system be used when dealing with classified documents and that a physical distance, or “air gap,” separate it from other computers.[1]

“Someone else in a similar situation could face ‘security or administrative sanctions,’” says FBI Director James Comey, so why not Hillary Clinton? “But that is not what we are deciding now.” Republicans (and I and I assume a few others) want to know why Clinton is above the law,[2] Comey apparently “simply ignored — or rewrote — the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent,”[3] Scott Stewart of Strafor rejected Clinton’s failure to use dual systems as “not carelessness” but rather “intentional,”[4] and I will be looking for comment from Jonathan Turley.

Regardless, “[t]he result is a public relations disaster for Clinton: Republicans will air footage of Barack Obama’s FBI director (a Republican, but an Obama appointee nonetheless) calling Clinton reckless on camera thousands and thousands of times between now and November.”[5] (Apparently being very careful to avoid the terminology of degrees of culpability, Comey actually said that “there is evidence that [Secretary Clinton or her colleagues] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”[6]) “[T]he absence of an indictment” will nonetheless “provide Trump and the Republican National Committee plenty of ammunition.”[7] Further, Comey flatly contradicted much of the Clinton’s narrative regarding the scandal.[8]

Hannah Allam and Tim Johnson, “Clinton’s handling of email went beyond carelessness, experts say,” McClatchy, July 5, 2016, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article87848077.html?rh=1

Rachael Bade, “5 ways Comey contradicted Clinton’s email claims,” Politico, July 5, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-comey-225121

Brian Beutler, “The FBI director’s pronouncements about Hillary Clinton were extremely unusual—and she has herself to blame,” New Republic, July 5, 2016, https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134865/fbi-directors-pronouncements-hillary-clinton-extremely-unusualand-blame

Shannen W. Coffin, “FBI Director Comey Is Wrong: The Case for Prosecuting Hillary Clinton Is Strong,” National Review, July 5, 2016, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437493/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-comey-built-strong-case-decided-against

Daniel R. DePetris, “The End of the Beginning of Hillary Clinton’s Email Problem,” National Interest, July 5, 2016, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-end-the-beginning-hillary-clintons-email-problem-16856

Julian Hattem, “FBI recommends no charges against Clinton,” Hill, July 5, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton

James Taranto, “Laws Are for Little People,” Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/laws-are-for-little-people-1467742661


Brexit

Marianna Duarte De Aragao, “Pound Tumbles to 31-Year Low as Brexit Starts to Inflict Damage,” Bloomberg, July 5, 2016, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-05/pound-drops-toward-31-year-low-as-selloff-resumes-before-carney

Lucy Meakin, “U.K. Business Expectations Fall ‘Off a Cliff’ on Brexit Vote,” Bloomberg, July 5, 2016, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-04/u-k-business-expectations-fall-off-a-cliff-after-brexit-vote


  1. [1]Hannah Allam and Tim Johnson, “Clinton’s handling of email went beyond carelessness, experts say,” McClatchy, July 5, 2016, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article87848077.html?rh=1
  2. [2]Julian Hattem, “FBI recommends no charges against Clinton,” Hill, July 5, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton; James Taranto, “Laws Are for Little People,” Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/laws-are-for-little-people-1467742661
  3. [3]Shannen W. Coffin, “FBI Director Comey Is Wrong: The Case for Prosecuting Hillary Clinton Is Strong,” National Review, July 5, 2016, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437493/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-comey-built-strong-case-decided-against
  4. [4]Hannah Allam and Tim Johnson, “Clinton’s handling of email went beyond carelessness, experts say,” McClatchy, July 5, 2016, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article87848077.html?rh=1
  5. [5]Brian Beutler, “The FBI director’s pronouncements about Hillary Clinton were extremely unusual—and she has herself to blame,” New Republic, July 5, 2016, https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134865/fbi-directors-pronouncements-hillary-clinton-extremely-unusualand-blame
  6. [6]Julian Hattem, “FBI recommends no charges against Clinton,” Hill, July 5, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton; James Taranto, “Laws Are for Little People,” Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/laws-are-for-little-people-1467742661
  7. [7]Daniel R. DePetris, “The End of the Beginning of Hillary Clinton’s Email Problem,” National Interest, July 5, 2016, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-end-the-beginning-hillary-clintons-email-problem-16856
  8. [8]Rachael Bade, “5 ways Comey contradicted Clinton’s email claims,” Politico, July 5, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-comey-225121

3 thoughts on “Cynics are vindicated as FBI recommends no charges for Hillary Clinton: Daily Bullshit, July 5, 2016 (updated)

  1. @benfell This was very much expected. There was no chance that a Democratic administration would prosecute the same party’s presumptive nominee for the White House.

    The rules (*any* rules, it appears) do not apply to her. She knows it, which is why she keeps doing this kind of thing. It won’t get any better, only worse, if and when she’s elected President.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.