For those who aren’t old enough to remember Bill Clinton’s term in office, CNN commentator David Gergen served as an advisor. That’s why it isn’t surprising to see him putting the best spin possible on Hillary’s Stay Out of Prison Day. Gergen actually had the chutzpah to say “the more one studies the Comey statement, the more scathing it becomes — and the more suggestive that their decision on prosecution was a close call.”
The decision wasn’t that close of a call. The title of Shannen Coffin’s article makes that clear. Andy McCarthy, a former US attorney who was the lead prosecutor in the trial of the Blind Sheikh, essentially said that FBI Director Comey rewrote the statute to keep Hillary from being prosecuted.
First, McCarthy wrote “According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.”
Then he wrote this:
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets.
How can Gergen read this professional prosecutor say that FBI Director Comey all but did backflips to avoid prosecuting Hillary, then say that the decision not to prosecute Hillary was “a close call”? How can Gergen read this and say it was a close call?
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States.
Torching straw man arguments isn’t difficult but it’s sometimes effective. Let’s hope this isn’t one of those times.
Authored By Let Freedom Ring Blog