The unavoidable logic of criminal behavior is that when crimes aren’t prosecuted, criminals are encouraged. Whether it’s shoplifting in San Francisco or New York or far more serious crimes such as violations of the law on the handling of classified information, the logic remains the same.
Comey excused Clinton’s flagrant violations of the law because she was politically aligned with him.
On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey gave a huge gift to then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The gift was in the form of his decision to not recommend prosecution of Clinton for her hundreds (thousands?) of violations of law when she was secretary of state by discussing classified information on unsecured email systems such as the now-infamous “Clintonmail.”
According to a news report, the Southeastern Legal Foundation has revealed that while Secretary of State Tony Blinken was Joe Biden’s national security advisor, he and Biden exchanged emails on classified matters on unsecured email systems using pseudonymous accounts on gmail.
Included among the topics discussed were a North Korean missile launch. Others, likely classified subjects, were redacted from emails upon disclosure to the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
As this column has written repeatedly, the use of unsecured emails to discuss classified information is a federal felony carrying a sentence of up to 10 years per offense.
As we should recall — and as I wrote eight years ago — Comey held a press conference to announce that while Clinton had used several private email systems — unsecured by the government — the FBI had not read the content of all of her tens of thousands of emails.
Comey’s statement went on to say:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Comey’s announcement that Clinton’s emails had contained information about Top Secret/Special Access programs should have been conclusive in regard to the prosecutions of her and her staff. We know, from Comey’s statement and other sources, that Clinton’s emails included “SITK” — Special Intelligence Talent Keyhole — satellite intelligence.
Comey’s statement included the fact that the emails included Special Access Program information. Those sources showed that the information Clinton emailed on unsecured emails was of the kind that was judged to be top secret. The definition of “top secret” is that such information is of the kind that any unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.
Nevertheless Comey, speaking for the FBI, concluded that, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
And that was the end of it. Comey excused Clinton’s flagrant violations of the law because she was politically aligned with him. The conclusion that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton and her staff was laughable. So was his conclusion that no foreign power or other group had hacked Clinton’s emails. The FBI couldn’t possibly conclude that because Clinton had destroyed one or two of her email devices and had her servers scrubbed by a contractor using the “Bleach Bit” program that would hide precisely this sort of evidence.
Now we have another case of the same kind. Biden, Blinken, and probably others, wantonly violated the law and committed criminal acts by sending classified information over unsecured email systems.
What we don’t know is how extensive were the discussions of classified topics, the level of classification and how far the Biden crew’s practice extended into Biden’s presidency.
We know, from the classified documents that were found in Biden’s garage, that he had no regard for classified information while he was vice president. The same is apparently true of his staff and cabinet members’ handling classified information while he was president.
Because Clinton and her staff got away with her conduct is no reason for Biden and his staff to get away with theirs. But they will and — bear with me for a moment — probably should.
When they are confirmed, attorney general nominee Pam Bondi and FBI director nominee Kash Patel, should investigate the Biden mishandling of classified information during his presidency. They will have to remember that last February then-special counsel Robert Hur found that Biden wasn’t mentally competent to stand trial. What was true about Biden’s mental condition in February has certainly worsened by now.
What that means is that the result of the Bondi-Patel investigations should be thorough and thoroughly publicized but not prosecuted.
All of those guilty of the mishandling of classified information should have their security clearances cancelled immediately after the investigation concludes. Biden, being mentally incapacitated, cannot be trusted to receive such information. Blinken and other cabinet members and staff should also have their clearances cancelled because they will be shown to be untrustworthy.
President-elect Trump shouldn’t authorize prosecutions of Biden and Co. for two reasons. Such action would diminish the United States’ standing as a democracy. Also, as this column has said before, the prosecution of Trump in the Florida classified information mishandling case reportedly had recordings of him discussing such information with people who had no security clearances.
Publication of Biden and his peoples’ mishandling of classified information, coupled with the outright cancellation of their security clearances, is enough. Trump will be very busy with other, vastly more important, matters than this.
READ MORE from Jed Babbin:
Doing Nothing About Drones in Jersey
The President Isn’t Done With Pardons
The post Biden, Hillary, and Mishandling Classified Information appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
