Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy See the Forest But Not the Trees

Hillary Got Mail

 

— by Odysseus & Polydamas

As the old story goes, a person can be so focused on the trees that he loses sight of the forest. Sometimes, however, the opposite is true and the trees themselves are important.

In his brilliant analysis of FBI Director James Comey’s topsy-turvy exculpation of Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy accurately describes how the FBI Director tortured reason, logic, and the law to inexplicably conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” would find cause to charge Clinton, after having precisely laid out the grounds upon which she could be prosecuted for a felony. Mr. McCarthy’s article in the National Review should be required reading and is respectfully reproduced below (http://bit.ly/29LAQzT).

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh did the same on his radio show with the benefit of quoting from Mr. McCarthy’s article. However, Mr. Limbaugh added his ominous analysis of the implications. According to Mr. Limbaugh’s commentary, it was now inescapable to any observer that the rule of law was now officially defunct, meaning there were people like Hillary Clinton that were more or less officially above the law.

Although certainly he was not the only one, Mr. Limbaugh was somehow reminded of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ inexplicable opinion in the 2015 case that challenged Obamacare, which mysteriously granted constitutionality to a clearly unconstitutional mandate, even though this decision required him to embrace a legal position pointedly disavowed by Obama’s solicitor, in whose favor he was ruling (a spectacle never seen in court in any case). The reason that Mr. Limbaugh heard an echo of Justice Roberts’ Obamacare decision in Director Comey’s words regarding Hillary Clinton was that, in both cases, someone knowledgeable and well trained in the law took pains to demonstrate their knowledge of both the law and the facts of the matter before them, only to blatantly and specifically toss them aside to achieve a predetermined outcome. In each such case, it was as though the Chief Justice and the FBI director wanted the public to know that they were neither ignorant, nor stupid, nor even cavalier about their decisions to go against both the facts and the law. They wanted everyone to know that their decisions were based on something other than facts or law or the official positions of parties. The outcomes in both instances were preordained.

It would have been easy for Director Comey to simply state that, upon examination of the facts and evidence, there was simply not enough evidence to move forward with any charges against Hillary Clinton. However, he chose to not do so. His presentation, taken as a whole, clearly lays out the overwhelming evidence against Hillary Clinton and further goes on to explain how she could be charged with the existing evidence. This is because the statutes in question merely require a negligent mindset, rather than a specific intention to violate the law, and he did specifically say that she was grossly negligent. Yet, he then concluded that she could not be charged because it was not intentional.

Director Comey’s contradictory position truly begs the question of why he would make such a conclusion in light of his previous presentation of the evidence. Although Andrew McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh rightly point out that Director Comey’s conclusion makes absolutely no sense and is a travesty of both law and logic, in doing so, they merely point out the existence of the forest. What they miss are the far more interesting individual trees.

We need to ask ourselves why would FBI Director Comey choose to make his previous and compelling presentation of the evidence against Hillary Clinton if he knew that he would ultimately conclude as he did? By analogy, why would an experienced and excellent poker player choose to so blatantly fold his cards, while showing everyone the superior cards that he was surrendering, when he could have easily folded with the cards face down? Why, indeed.

If Director Comey is under duress to pronounce a preordained outcome, why would he dare show the public his full hand in the way he did? This is, in some ways, reminiscent of prisoners of war who are forced by their captors to make statements against their will, and who attempt to find some way to indicate their true dissenting opinions that are buried within their official statements. Some prisoners have employed Morse code to blink with their eyelids a message of dissent that contradicted their spoken statements. Some prisoners have used uncharacteristic words or phrases to show the world that they were under duress and were not speaking their true minds.

Today’s indictment within an exculpation of Hillary Clinton by Director Comey appears to be much the same as a prisoner of war. That he is apparently compelled to pronounce a position that he does not believe in, and that someone has the power to compel him to do so is terrifying. That he believes he can do so in this manner still leaves us hope.

In our previous posts, we have explored in some length our conjectures that, since the early 1990s, Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed blackmail material on Republicans and Democrats alike from the FBI files that were purloined by their henchman Craig Livingstone. We have also explored at length our conjectures that, like President Richard M. Nixon before them, the Clintons have used the government agencies to dig up dirt on their political opponents. As exposed by whisteblower Edward Snowden, the CIA and the NSA’s wiretapping capabilities are employed to spy on the American people. Even powerful politicians have seen government agencies spy on them and leak damaging information. This has been the recent experience of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who has tangled with the CIA and of Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) who was the target of damaging leaks by the Secret Service.

Director Comey may be under duress and may have been blackmailed to assure his cooperation in giving Hillary Clinton a pass. That he still has the courage and conviction to defy his blackmailers despite risk to in his own and his family’s safety may show that, at least, he still has some hope. He still saw value and risked much by his defiance.

If we here at The Cassandra Times are correct, Director Comey’s presentation of the evidence against Hillary Clinton was an act of bravery that gives us hope. Perhaps the struggle for our Constitution, for our liberty, for the rule of law, and for our way of life is already under way inside the Washington D.C. beltway and in the halls of power around the country. Perhaps the modern Sons of Liberty are already on the move, and the American version of “Operation Valkyrie” still has the chance to take back our Republic to restore its ideals and the rule of law.

If the American people still have defenders within the ranks of the powerful and among government agencies, who have not been seduced by absolute power, and if they choose to finally oppose this lawless junta that has taken control of our instruments of government, we here at The Cassandra Times wish them luck and godspeed.

=====================

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
Andrew McCarthy
National Review
July 5, 2016
There is no way of getting around this: 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.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

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; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
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. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed.
The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *