Comey was wrong--Several reasonable prosecutors would have brought case against Clinton

When FBI Director James Comey dismissed the case against Hillary Clinton he said it was because no reasonable attorney would take the case. Now we learn that there were plenty who would have done so.

When Comey made his statement about the case in July, he painted a devastating portrait ofHillary Clinton's reckless use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

Clinton knew little to nothing about handling classified material. She sent and received top secret information on an unsecured private email system and was otherwise extremely careless with national security secrets. She likely exposed sensitive material to enemies, and hid thousands of work emails that were supposed to have been turned over. And she or her top staff probably broke the law.

Then, Comey simply shrugged his shoulders and said that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

"Reasonable" is the operative word there. This implication is that, while a partisan hack might bring such a case, no legitimate prosecutor would.

But it turns out that this was an utterly false claim. Fox News reported on Wednesday that there were many "reasonable" attorneys who would have done so. "Career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged," Fox reports.

It quotes a source who worked on the case as saying that "no trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute." The decision not to came from above, he said.

This adds more weight to the troubling claim that Comey's investigation was never serious.

Since Comey's statement in July, for example, we've learned that the FBI granted unusually wide-ranging immunity deals to key witnesses, in exchange for which the FBI got little or nothing of value.
Usually, the attorney for the person seeking immunity must offer a statement of what the client is likely to testify about.  That does not seem to have happened in this case and the failure to have a grand jury subpoena was a critical mistake since with that the FBI could have seized the computers in question without having to offer immunity or agree to destroy them.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?