Republicans were gearing up a multi-pronged political assault that could keep the controversy thriving until the November elections, and possibly beyond ~ excerpt from the 7/7/2016 Daily Beast article Hillary Clinton's emails Are the GOP's New Benghazi.
"Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two" was when Hillary Clinton was supposed to be indicted journalist Ronald Kessler said on 4/15/2016 (on the Rightwing Steve Malzberg Show re the HRC email controversy).
Kessler further predicted that after the indictment Barack Obama would step in and pardon her. Because there was "no question she will be indicted" due to the fact that FBI Director "is a man of great integrity" (SWTD #333).
So, clearly (according to Kessler) HRC broke the law. But FBI Director Comey (who testified before the House Oversight Committee yesterday, 7/7/2016) says otherwise (audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).
|AUDIO CLIP #1|
Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law?
James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not.
Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law?
James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not.
AUDIO CLIP #2
James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.
So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did.
Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".
In addition Miller noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".
So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. So HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. As Comey noted in his Congressional testimony, the FBI considered "the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past" (Why the FBI Let Hillary Clinton Off the Hook).
Although, in regards to the previous administration's mishandling of sensitive information... yeah, that happened. But the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in conjunction with their coverup of election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).
And all that happened then was that Gonzales was pressured to step down. There was no kind of investigation, even though the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).
The only reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did (an FBI investigation of HRC when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes), is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And use investigations and hearings as political weapons. Remember it was during the unending Benghazi hearings that HRC's email server situation came up (similar to how the investigation into Whitewater during Bill Clinton's presidency eventually led to an impeachment for a BJ).
Republicans "investigate" again and again, and again... not caring if any actual misdeeds are uncovered... the simple fact that there are investigations are proof enough for their stupid voters that there MUST be some wrongdoing. Although maybe they'll get lucky and SOMETHING will stick.
The unending investigations explaining how we ended up with 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).
Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT is that the purpose of this "investigation" (JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation"), is to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).
For the record, I'm actually in favor of such rules being strictly enforced. But only going forward. Don't tell me that HRC should be prosecuted for negligence when the bush administration was totally let off the hook in regards to actual and intentional crimes! Because that absolutely will NOT fly with me.