Hillary Clinton Could Get Away With Murder – Defining Deviance Down, by Dave Kranzler. At last a succinct case for why the FBI’s announcement that they will not indict Hillary Clinton is so significant.
First, FBI Director James Comey made out a clear-cut case that Hillary Clinton violated section 793(f) of the US Espionage Act:
Second, Comey excused Hillary on the grounds of intention:
By the express terms of 18 U.S.C. 793(f), criminal culpability exists where there is a finding of “gross negligence.” But James Comey informed us that the legal standard is different for Hillary Clinton and her coterie: “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information”
Intent is irrelevant in a case of negligence, at least for people other than Hillary.
Third, Comey says the law will continue to apply to others but not to Hillary.
James Comey: “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
The political implications of this are awful:
The FBI told us that Hillary broke the law, but that it’s of no consequence because she, like a queen (or king), is above the law. …
[L]et’s be clear about what the rule of law is, and about its mortal enemy, the rule of kings. When it comes to governance, there are two and only two systems. They are mutually exclusive. Either the law is reigns supreme over the land, or men do. It’s one or the other.
Since its inception, the U.S. has self-identified as a nation of laws, not of men. The U.S., of course, has never lived up to this impossibly perfect ideal, but there is no dispute whatsoever that the rule of law is the reigning ideal against which justice is measured. …
The American implementation of the rule of law has several corollaries, including:
(1) because the law is supreme, no one is above the law;
(2) there isn’t one set of rules for some people and a different set of rules for other people; and
(3) because the same laws must be applied equally in all cases, factually identical cases from the past determine how the law applies in future cases. …
The punchline of the story:
Comey bends the law around Hillary Clinton, exactly as a dutiful civil servant of the king would do.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton: Too Big to Jail, by Ben Shapiro.
But Clinton is a member of the Royal Family. Thus, said Comey, she was innocent. Comey tried to say he wouldn’t recommend prosecution because she didn’t have the requisite intent, but the law doesn’t require intent; it requires merely “gross negligence” under 18 U.S.C. 793. In fact, even the level of intent required to charge under statutes like 18 U.S.C. 1924 and 18 U.S.C. 798 was clearly met: the intent to place classified information in a nonapproved, non-classified place.
Nonetheless, Clinton would be allowed to roam free — and become president. “To be clear,” Comey intoned, “this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
One rule for the peons, one for the potentates.