The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
Hillary Clinton and the FBI
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

On Sept. 2, the FBI released a lengthy explanation of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and a summary of the evidence amassed against her. It also released a summary of Clinton’s July FBI interrogation.

The interrogation was in some respects standard and in others very troubling. It was standard in that she was confronted with emails she had sent or received and was asked whether she recalled them, and her judgment about them was challenged. The FBI was looking for gross negligence in her behavior about securing state secrets.

The failure to secure state secrets that have been entrusted to one for safekeeping is known as espionage, and espionage is the rare federal crime that does not require prosecutors to prove the defendant’s intent. They need only prove the defendant’s gross negligence.

At one point during the interrogation, FBI agents attempted to trick her, as the law permits them to do. Before the interrogation began, agents took the hard copy of an innocuous email Clinton had sent to an aide and marked it “secret.”

Then, at her interrogation, they asked Clinton whether she recognized the email and its contents. She said she did not recognize it, but she questioned the “secret” denomination and pointed out to the agents that nothing remotely secret was in the email.

By examining the contents of the email to see whether it contained state secrets, which it clearly did not, Clinton demonstrated an awareness of the law — namely, that it is the contents of a document or email that cause it to be protected by federal secrecy statutes, not the denomination put on it by the sender.

This added to the case against her because she later told the FBI that she had never paid attention to whether a document contained state secrets or not. In the strange world of espionage prosecution, this denial of intent is an admission of guilt, as it is profoundly the job of the secretary of state to recognize state secrets and to keep them in their secure government-protected venues, and the grossly negligent failure to do so is criminal.

The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what “C” means in the margin of a government document. “C” in the margin means “confidential,” which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets. The other two levels are “secret” and “top secret.” Under federal law, Clinton was required to keep in secure government venues all documents in those three categories. The FBI found that she had failed to do so hundreds of times.

By denying that she had paid attention to notes in margins designating the presence of secrets, by denying that she recognized a secret when she saw one and by denying that the location of planned drone strikes is secret (an obvious secret with which FBI agents confronted her), she succeeded in avoiding incriminating herself.

But by saving herself from indictment, she may have doomed her campaign for president. In this dangerous world, how can a person seeking the presidency be so dumb or ignorant or indifferent or reckless or deceptive about what is a secret and what is not?

The records released last week also reveal that the FBI must have been restrained from the outset from conducting an aggressive investigation. It did not present any evidence to a grand jury. It did not ask a grand jury for any subpoenas, and hence it didn’t serve any. It did not ask a judge for any search warrants, and hence it didn’t serve any. The data and hardware it gathered in the case were given to it in response to simple requests it made.

I counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have what it needed. This is the FBI’s own fault. This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials.

Someone restrained the FBI.

The FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them — particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.

Now the FBI has interjected itself into the presidential campaign by releasing these documents. Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence pointing to Clinton’s guilt, it is highly improper and grossly unfair to release evidence gathered against a person who will not be prosecuted. Moreover, it is tendentious to release only part of the evidence — only what agents want the public to see — rather than the complete file. Yet all this evidence is secret under DOJ regulations. Had any of it been intended for or presented to a grand jury, the release of it would have been criminal.

What happened here? The FBI seriously dropped the ball, and Clinton was more concerned about being indicted than she was about losing the race for the presidency.

It is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do — exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI’s failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it. Yet some in the FBI are not professionally satisfied by this outcome. They know that a strong case for prosecution and for guilt is being ignored for political reasons.

What else do they know?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. There never was any intent to investigate Ms. Clinton’s activity with the intent to prosecute if grounds for same were discovered. The FBI and DoJ performed a whitewashing exercise, and are now thoroughly discredited. Clinton ad her crowd laugh at the FBI like a dog in a hat, while people who used to count on the FBI to help them are horrified and afraid of what the Bureau has become.

    It is exceedingly unlikely that the FBI will ever need, want, or require anything from me. I am not a criminal or a public official, and I don’t do anything that is of any interest to them, or anyone else, for that matter. But… The FBI needs me desperately. They need people like me to give them the authority to perform investigations and be believed, even deferred to, when results of those investigations are released. They do not have me. I would not cross the street to help the FBI, or any organization associated with them. The FBI should be disbanded. They are unworthy of public trust, and are a threat to national security.

    They look past Clinton’s crimes. They will have no second thoughts about making one up out of whole cloth for anyone else. Disarm them, and send them on their way while we still can.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clinton-and-the-fbi/#comment-1561186
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. The FBI, like the rest of the federal mafia, is a criminal organization. Anyone who doubted the truth of this before no longer has any reason to doubt it. Welcome to the fascist banana republic police state known as the USA.

    Read More
  3. Napolitano says it best:

    “I counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have have what it needed. This is the FBI’s own fault. This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials.

    “Someone restrained the FBI.”

    Remember that secret meeting at the Phoenix airport between “Blow Job Bill” Clinton and U.S. Shyster General Loretta Lynch? What did those two REALLY discuss, one wonders. . . .

    Read More
  4. In July 2016, James Comey, FBI director accused Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of “having been extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private e-mail server while serving as US secretary of state under Barack Obama’s first administration. Comey also recommended that the US Justice Department should not charge her for such petty crime.

    “Although the Department of Justice makes the final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to the department our views that no charges is appropriate in this case. Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of the classified, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said on TV relayed from FBI headquarters.

    Just imagine had it been Hillary Clinton’s so-called ‘Muslim aide’ Huma Abedin even though she is married to a disgraced Jewish sex-maniac and former Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner. The Jewish Lobby would have accused her of “stealing and passing the classified information to her father who allegedly was a former sympathizer of Jew-hating Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

    Last year James Comey refused to call Dylann Roof who killed nine worshippers at the Charleston church, a terrorist. Why? Because the term ‘terrorist’ is reserved for Muslim extremists (here).

    “Comey’s kowtow to the partisan political interests of the Obama Administration and its powerful elitists will add to the erosion of faith in the American system and embed a bitter partisanship that will take a decade or more to bridge. I am certain he expects an angry reaction, and he should also expect sustained anger. Public trust in the federal government is near an all-time low, and Comey’s decision is a heavy blow. Elitists should prepare for sustained disrespect of laws they favor. A large slice of the American population, fed up with crony government and crony capitalism, will begin experimenting with civil disobedience. As a former community organizer, President Obama is no position to object,” commented professor Austin Bay (University of Texas in Austin) on July 5.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/06/fbis-comey-dont-indict-hillary-for-her-crimes/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    “Comey’s kowtow to the partisan political interests of the Obama Administration and its powerful elitists will add to the erosion of faith in the American system and embed a bitter partisanship that will take a decade or more to bridge. . . ." -- Prof. Austin Bay

    I believe that Professor Bay is overly optimistic with his analysis. There won't be a "decade or more" to bridge much of anything if this shrew become president.
  5. What I cannot fathom is why Comey did what he did? Money? A career promise down the road? He’s unlikely to run for office. A judgeship CEO of something

    With all the criticism, much of which he knew would come down on him, whatever it is must be powerful to Comey but I cannot figure our what it could be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miles Long
    Jim Sweeney... think Vince Foster & your question may be answered.
  6. No reasonably intelligent person can believe her story.

    The woman is a liar!

    And it’s as simple as that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    "No reasonably intelligent person can believe her story."

    Yeah, but are the American sheeple "reasonably intelligent"?
  7. @Rehmat
    In July 2016, James Comey, FBI director accused Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of “having been extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private e-mail server while serving as US secretary of state under Barack Obama’s first administration. Comey also recommended that the US Justice Department should not charge her for such petty crime.

    “Although the Department of Justice makes the final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to the department our views that no charges is appropriate in this case. Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of the classified, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said on TV relayed from FBI headquarters.

    Just imagine had it been Hillary Clinton’s so-called ‘Muslim aide’ Huma Abedin even though she is married to a disgraced Jewish sex-maniac and former Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner. The Jewish Lobby would have accused her of “stealing and passing the classified information to her father who allegedly was a former sympathizer of Jew-hating Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

    Last year James Comey refused to call Dylann Roof who killed nine worshippers at the Charleston church, a terrorist. Why? Because the term ‘terrorist’ is reserved for Muslim extremists (here).

    “Comey’s kowtow to the partisan political interests of the Obama Administration and its powerful elitists will add to the erosion of faith in the American system and embed a bitter partisanship that will take a decade or more to bridge. I am certain he expects an angry reaction, and he should also expect sustained anger. Public trust in the federal government is near an all-time low, and Comey’s decision is a heavy blow. Elitists should prepare for sustained disrespect of laws they favor. A large slice of the American population, fed up with crony government and crony capitalism, will begin experimenting with civil disobedience. As a former community organizer, President Obama is no position to object,” commented professor Austin Bay (University of Texas in Austin) on July 5.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/06/fbis-comey-dont-indict-hillary-for-her-crimes/

    “Comey’s kowtow to the partisan political interests of the Obama Administration and its powerful elitists will add to the erosion of faith in the American system and embed a bitter partisanship that will take a decade or more to bridge. . . .” — Prof. Austin Bay

    I believe that Professor Bay is overly optimistic with his analysis. There won’t be a “decade or more” to bridge much of anything if this shrew become president.

    Read More
  8. @Jim Sweeney
    What I cannot fathom is why Comey did what he did? Money? A career promise down the road? He's unlikely to run for office. A judgeship CEO of something

    With all the criticism, much of which he knew would come down on him, whatever it is must be powerful to Comey but I cannot figure our what it could be.

    Jim Sweeney… think Vince Foster & your question may be answered.

    Read More
  9. comey is another in a long line of fakes. he runs through the gamut of lies & illegal behavior(but left out destroying evidence)to essentially cya. then embarks on another cya tactic: no prosecutor would take the case, so i won’t bother to follow up and recommend charges. how disingenuous.
    comey, like lynch – indeed, like the supreme court – is a politician.
    what’s law got to do with it?

    Read More
  10. @Connecticut Famer
    No reasonably intelligent person can believe her story.

    The woman is a liar!

    And it's as simple as that.

    “No reasonably intelligent person can believe her story.”

    Yeah, but are the American sheeple “reasonably intelligent”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    Good question, Mr. Larson, good question. I hope they are in this case---but I sure as hell wouldn't count on it.
  11. @Orville H. Larson
    "No reasonably intelligent person can believe her story."

    Yeah, but are the American sheeple "reasonably intelligent"?

    Good question, Mr. Larson, good question. I hope they are in this case—but I sure as hell wouldn’t count on it.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject