‘Clear Clinton’ Is Most Absurd, Frustrating, Outrageous Decision … Ever

FBI Director James Comey clears Hillary Clinton, suggesting that Justice Department should NOT prosecute her despite acknowledging her “extreme carelessness” with classified information, which, according to the letter of the law, should classify her as negligent with classified material under the very statute Comey cited. Comey himself, at the beginning of his statement, even acknowledged actual intent is not necessary and that only this sort of recklessness is needed for a prosecution.

That, of course, didn’t stop him from clearly Clinton or making absolutely absurd statements like the one below:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

So, there is evidence of “potential violations,” but there shouldn’t be a prosecution? I’d love to understand the logic behind this statement. I really would. But frankly, at this point, what difference does any of this make? This is all so outrageous, and I can’t help but think that if this were any other person breaking any other law the results would be different.

We don’t live in a nation of laws anymore, and we haven’t for awhile now. But if “potential violations” aren’t enough to warrant a prosecution, I don’t know what would be.

-J

Justin Haskins
Justin Haskins
About Justin Haskins (205 Articles)
Justin Haskins is a widely published writer and political commentator, the senior editor and founder of The Henry Dearborn Institute for Liberty, and the editorial director and research fellow at The Heartland Institute, a national free-market think tank. (His work here does not necessarily reflect the views of The Heartland Institute.). Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.