http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/po ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The FBI Director Comey never said that her actions did not amount to a crime. What Comey said wasOnly six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime.
The FBI said there was no clear evidence. That is a long way from declaring no crime was committed. In addition, being extremely careless with classified information is a crime. There is evidence to support that, but the FBI declined to press charges. Comey went on to sayAlthough 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.
Declining to prosecute does not make you innocent. The FBI declined to prosecute due to the lack of precedent, not the presence of HRC's innocence. I find this reasoning to be a little troubling, as being the first to commit a certain type of crime somehow grants you amnesty?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.... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
In any event, characterizing the FBI's comments as "not amounting to a crime" is willful manipulation of the facts by the New York Times. This leads to a characterization of the whole email scandal as "HRC did nothing wrong" where it should be "HRC did something illegal, but the justice system declined to prosecute". The FBI never said "No crime was committed", and the New York Times printed that the FBI did. The NYT should know this, as their own article contained the complete transcript of Comey's remarks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/tr ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
People vote on the basis of how the media present the facts. People assume that respected institutions like the New York Times is a reliable source. When that trust in our news reporting is violated, the integrity of the election is threatened. As an isolated occurrence, the effect is negligible, but when it is a repetitive condition, our voting decision suffers.
I recently read a comment on how Bill Clinton was impeached for "getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse", and how we as Americans shouldn't be concerned with any public official's sex life. I agree, I don't care about either Clinton's sex life. However, WJC was impeached not for the blowjob, not because it was in the Oval Office, and not because it was with Lewinsky. WJC was impeached because he lied about having sex while under oath in a sexual harassment case. It was the perjury, not the sex. It was the sexual harassment in the case at hand, not the sex with Lewinsky. The media's willingness to portray it as "Clinton was impeached for getting some on the side", and the public's perception of that still lives on to this day. And people vote on that perception.
Oh, well. At this point, what difference does it make?