FBI Director James Comey announced today that his agency will not recommend indicting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her handling of emails. Even so, he said that she and her aides were "extremely careless". He also said there is "evidence of potential violations", but that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".
I admit to being unaware of the meaning of the term "potential violation". How does a potential violation differ from an actual one? And why isn't being "extremely careless" a violation unto itself? Aren't there offenses such as animal cruelty and traffic violations that can arise from carelessness or negligence rather than intent? It seems that once again, for a Clinton, "bureaucratic SNAFU" is an acceptable defense.
Read more at The Verge, Breitbart, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News and ABC News.
UPDATE: Mere minutes after putting up this post, I find something at National Review by Andrew McCarthy (who admits being a longtime friend of Director Comey) who makes my point in the second paragraph above better than I do. Read it here.
No comments:
Post a Comment