Writing in conservative site WND, investigative reporter reminds of what then deputy US attorney general James Comey said when talking to reporters regarding the case of one-time Clinton advisor Sandy Berger:
In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.
“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.
He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.
“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”
On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.
Such loyalty in demonstrating he has the Clinton’s back was rewarded. Hillary Clinton’s emails show that Berger is still a valuable advisor:
Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.
For example, in an email dated Sept. 22, 2009, Berger advised Clinton advised how she could leverage information to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more cooperative in discussions with the Obama administration over a settlement freeze.
As Scathing Purple Musings observed in an earlier post, water boarding to the English language is frequently applied to save the Clinton’s. Somehow “gross negligence” isn’t what Hillary and her hacks were engaged in. Or maybe as Andrew McCarthy advanced Monday in asserting that Comey had to rewrite federal law to get Clinton off the hook.
Still, its fair to consider the fact that Comey did all he could and, in fact, condemned Clinton by laying out the findings in the manner he did. She lied. And everyone knows, too.
Is Pat Buchanan right this morning in this observation:
What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander-in-chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?
If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander-in-chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.
And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.