Did FBI’s Comey really attend law school?
By John Lawrence Allen, July 7, 2016
When political elite manifest a clear disregard for the rule of law and place themselves above it, we have reached the end of the Republic.
For decades, the Clintons have overtly and covertly subverted our laws. They are but one
example of the political elite that live by their own rules, unfettered by the statutes that apply to mortal beings. The Wall Street scandals of the past prove that if you have enough money or political influence you are above the law, not subject to prosecution for any manner of corporate crime.
Listening to interviews of Hilary supporters is quite demoralizing. They are pleased that she wasn’t prosecuted. How could any moral person not be outraged by the contradictory statement made by FBI Director James B. Comey? Let’s take a closer look at what he said.
“Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way…”
Then later in his remarks he said:
“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.”
Did Mr. Comey really attend law school?
It doesn’t get any more basic than this. Extreme carelessness equals gross negligence. Case over. I have been a lawyer for many decades and I am dumbfounded by Comey’s failure to follow legal principals in reaching his unorthodox decision.
Since every law student knows that extreme carelessness is gross negligence, why didn’t Comey recommend prosecution?
Even more incredulous, is the following statement that no prosecutor would ever make. I know because I was a former prosecutor with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office.
“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.”
It is not the responsibility of the FBI or any investigative entity to determine the reasonableness of the prosecutor. Their job is to present evidence to the prosecutor who then makes a decision based upon the evidence. But the fix was already in. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, just a few day earlier, stated that she would follow the recommendation of the FBI.
However, the truly stunning statement that confirms the end of our Republic seems to be lost in the confusing rhetoric:
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
Here in plain language is confirmation that Hilary Clinton is above the law. The law applies to others who, under the exact same circumstances, would face prosecution.
Please take stock of this: Hilary Clinton could not obtain security clearance to serve in her own cabinet. How then, could she be qualified to serve as president of the United States?
John Lawrence Allen, a nationally recognized legal expert, represents investors nationwide in securities arbitration. Mr. Allen’s second book, “Make Wall Street Pay You Back,” was just released. For more information visit www.MakeWallStreetPayYouBack.com.