Your problems are our opportunities.

FBI and Clinton’s Intent . . . What Difference Does It Make?

Bayard & Holmes

~ Piper Bayard

FBI Director James Comey basically said today that Clinton was negligent with top secret, classified, and confidential information, but she did not “intend” to commit any crimes, so they recommend letting her off.

How can this be? Other than the fact that this is the Obama administration, and he’s not going to let the FBI or the Clinton’s good friend Loretta Lynch destroy the Democratic Party by indicting their candidate?

Some sections of the Espionage Act spell out intent to hurt the US or aid a foreign power as an element of a crime. In other words, the criminal had to WANT to hurt the US or aid a foreign power. If the prosecutor cannot prove that was the purpose of the violation, then there technically was no violation. The person is not guilty if the US was hurt by accident, or a foreign power was helped by accident.

For example, Bradley (Brianna) Manning intended to hurt the US by releasing classified information to the public and our enemies. Edward Snowden intended to release classified information to the public and to our enemies that would hurt the US and/or aid foreign countries. Edward Lin was caught red handed selling top secret information to China.

The FBI says that while Clinton did almost without doubt release top secret, classified, and confidential information to our enemies, the FBI believes her that she did not “intend” to hurt the US or aid a foreign country. The FBI said that because it believes her more-than-careless security practices were not INTENDED to hurt the US and/or help our enemies, the fact that they DID result in our enemies having access to our top secrets is irrelevant.

Note that I said “some sections of the Espionage Act.”

The FBI is ignoring 18 US Code Sec. 793 (e), (f), however, which has specifically different language . . . Those subsections say that a crime has been committed if a person acted “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: “reason to believe” and “is to be used.”

Other laws regarding the handling of classified information hold a violation at the standard of “gross negligence.” It is no stretch that Comey’s description of “extreme carelessness” and “negligence” could be considered “gross negligence.”

Under that standard, it is preposterous to argue that a woman who was First Lady for 8 years, senator for 8 years, and thoroughly briefed on security before entering the office of Secy of State did not have reason to believe that anyone able to tap into her server could use the information to injure the US or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

So the FBI is ignoring subsections (e) and (f) of the Espionage Act and hanging its hat on this . . . Did Clinton INTEND for our enemies to glean that information from her unsecured server to use against the US or for their own benefit? That is an answer we will never know, but considering all of the Chinese, Middle Eastern, and other foreign money backing the Clintons, anything is possible.

I have said this once before . . . Clinton was First Lady for 8 years. She was a senator for 8 years. She received a thorough briefing on security measures before she became Secy of State. After all of that experience and all of those instructions, she still CHOSE to flagrantly violate those security measures to play Hide the Shell with top secret and classified emails, thus almost certainly dessiminating our top secret information to our enemies.

There are only two possibilities . . .

She is either a ruthless criminal, or she is too stupid to be president.

Meme 2016 Hillary Laws Are For The Peasants

And if you’re thinking that you can do what Clinton did if you are also entrusted with State secrets, think again . . . Comey made it clear that similar circumstances could still result in an indictment for anyone else.

Posted in:

8 thoughts on “ FBI and Clinton’s Intent . . . What Difference Does It Make?

  1. Her sorry butt belongs in jail, and if it were anyone else, they would be. The American people need to wake up and stop putting up with this garbage. She has no business being a candidate in the upcoming election. What options do we have though? I am not sure exactly how to go about protesting this, and it’s doubtful the government would listen if I did. :-p

    • It’s a depressing situation, for sure. I would love to see a third party get enough votes to bust up this two-party system that is completely self-serving at the expense of the American people.

  2. on ,
    Michelle Morrison said:


    I do not believe that the fact several people who were supposed to testify against her died is a coincidence either. :-p

    • What a windfall for her that Ashe drops a barbell on his own throat while alone in his home the night before he is supposed to testify. That’s just the most recent. It does start to raise some questions, doesn’t it?

  3. Who actually thought a Democrat administration would actually prosecute another prominent Democrat for anything. She wasn’t prosecuted for Whitewater, Travelgate, arranging the deaths of Vince Foster and numerous others who fell out of favor with the Clinton administration. This comes as such a surprise. NOT!

    • I agree that there was no chance that the Obama administration would allow the FBI or Justice Dept. to continue pursuing an indictment. The American people were forced to purchase yet another incredibly expensive ticket to Political Theater. As for “arranging the deaths” . . . I have no comment.

  4. on ,
    Dave said:


    A common defense (redirection) being used by Clinton supporters is that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both used private email. Aw, shucks. She just did the same thing that her predecessors did. This is disingenuous, because between the time both served as SoS and Clinton took office, the world of email and networking has changed infinitely. In the old days, hackers were pimply-faced kids with the occasional visionary criminal thrown in, whose primary objective was to disrupt operations or earn bragging rights.

    Today, network infiltration and theft of proprietary/confidential intellectual property is the mainstay of professional criminal organizations and state actors. State actors (read: NSA for the other guys) can draw on the full capabilities and virtually infinite resources of their state sponsors to target high-value victims with sophisticated phishing and social engineering attacks. And that’s only the beginning… An attack on someone like Clinton, made child’s play by her obsession with control over personal communications, would be worth persistent, subtle, and sophisticated attacks. No one would ever know, if they were to do it right.

    Clinton and her backers know all of this, but they can capitalize on her followers’ commitment to keeping the Democratic Party in power. Those intelligent enough to understand will overlook and forgive anything, seizing on the flimsiest of alibis. Those that aren’t? Well, sheep must be sheared.

    As in Whitewater and always, the Clintons have correctly counted on being smarter than the critical mass of the American public, aided by 40 years of concerted efforts by our educational system to churn out “voters” that can’t smell bullshit from two feet away.

  5. There has always been a legal divide between the elites and the rest of us. What has always surprised me is how many people seem to either ignore that fact or simply don’t care. But the conclusion is obvious – those with money and, more importantly, connections can ignore the law as long as they do so with a modicum of deftness.

    The crimes that led to Richard Nixon’s ouster weren’t especially different in scope and depth from many others, including Mrs. Clinton. Where he failed was in his clumsiness. Bill and Hillary have almost certainly acted less ethically than Tricky Dick and for far longer, but he committed the unpardonable sin of getting caught and then doing a lousy job of covering it up. The Clintons have been vastly better at covering their butts.

    If we subscribe to Nietzche, ethics aren’t the most important tools of statecraft. Perhaps he was right. But I suspect not. When I was a kid, whenever I got myself wound up about something I thought was unfair, he used to ask me, “Do you want to be right or do you want to win?” The wisdom of that question was in the fact that doing the right thing and winning aren’t always the same thing.

    But as I watch this election cycle unfold I find myself going back to that question and wondering if winning really means very much if it demands giving up being right.

Leave a Reply


Return to Top
%d bloggers like this: