Outrage is the only word to describe the feelings of so many Americans who watched in disbelief as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, point by devastating point refuted virtually every statement Hillary Clinton has uttered over the past year about her reason for using a server in her home instead of the State Department’s own secure server while she was Secretary of State. Her statements on the nature of and types of information she allowed to flow through her personal unprotected server, her work related e-mails that were, in spite of her protestations, not turned over to the State Department and the people she allowed to see those sensitive documents were proven false.
After his breathtaking recitation of the lies, misstatements, fabrications, prevarications and misleading comments by Clinton, he stunned the world by stating that, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey said that the investigation found no “intent” a prosecutorial requirement not found in the statutes or used in previous prosecutions of government officials who abused sensitive documents. Generally, after an investigation, the case would be referred to a Grand Jury and they would decide if a prosecution was warranted. No Grand Jury saw this case though.
We are expected to believe that the tarmac meeting between Comey’s immediate boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, had no bearing in Comey’s unprecedented announcement that no prosecution should be sought.
Of course, we are also expected to believe that the fact that President Obama, Comey’s bosses boss, was hosting Hillary Clinton on Air Force One on a campaign tour that very day also played no role in his decision. What an awkward flight that would have been if Comey had decided to refer the investigation to a Grand Jury.
Many, like me, believe Clinton set up this system to deny the right of the American People to see the work product of the Secretary of State though the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which was written to prevent acts just like this. Every executive at every level of government, from your City to the Presidency know that their communications are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and that it is illegal to destroy documents that are covered by the Act.
By hiding her e-mails at home she effectively thwarted the Act. Then by deciding which e-mails to turn over when she got caught, she again violated the law. As to “intent”, why go to all the trouble of setting up her own system, then refusing to turn over the hard drives containing her e-mails if you had no “intent” to violate the law. Her repeated but debunked statements that it was for convenience begs the question: Wouldn’t it be more convenient to use the State Department run system already in place? She would not have had to hire staff to operate her home-based system. The State Department was doing that already.
Comey also exposed the lie that “All work related e-mails were turned over.” They weren’t. He exposed the lie that there were no top secret e-mails on her server. There were.
If Clinton can’t or won’t follow the same laws that everyone else in government must, can’t or won’t follow the rules to protect our secrets and can’t or won’t tell the American people the truth, how can we trust her to be President?
Gary Gillen owns and operates Gillen Pest Control and Gillen Political Strategies in Richmond. He is the only person in history to have served on both the Richmond City Commission and the Rosenberg City Council. He was the Chairman of the Republican Party of Fort Bend County 2006-2007. He can be reached at Gary@GaryGillen.com