Rule of Law RIP

I told you a couple of weeks ago that the Rule of Law was about to die; that it is being replaced by the Rule of the Victors.  It turns out I was right to say the Rule of Law's existence was in peril.  I was wrong to say that it could die in the future.  Turns out, it was already dead.  I can prove it to you.  

Let's start with the definition of the term Rule of Law.  It means that the law is supreme; that no individual or group is above the law or not subject to the law.  It means all people are treated equally under the law regardless of gender, sex, class, or political affiliation.  In our nation today, we have learned that we are not all equal under the law.  If you are politically connected to the ruling party and that ruling elite wants you to be the next President of the United States, then you are not subject to the law.  You are held to a different standard than the rest of the nation.  

I want to be very clear about this so that there is no confusion.  I'm not saying this based upon conspiracy theories or a flood of emotion.  It is the only logical conclusion I can reach based upon FBI Director James Comey's announcement that his agency would not recommend to his bosses for Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted under the law.  

Here are the facts.  1) Hillary Clinton broke the law as it was written and intended.  2) James Comey admitted his investigation found that she and her staff did break the law as it was written and intended. 3) that James Comey decided not to recommend prosecution for non-legal reasons. 4) That Hillary Clinton is well connected politically.  These statements of fact lead me to two conclusions.  The first is that Hillary's political connections had the ability to have influenced James Comey's decision.  Finally, if all of those statements are true then the fact is we do not live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy and the laws of this nation are different for you and me than they are for the small ruling elite. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, but you would be extremely foolish to ignore the facts.

Let's start with fact one.  Hillary Clinton broke the law as it was written and intended.  Here's the statement from Director Comey about the law he was investigating.

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, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
— James Comey

Ok, now here is what Director Comey said his investigation found.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
— James Comey

Here are the things that would have to exist if Mrs. Clinton broke the law.  First, there would have to be classified information that was improperly stored or transmitted.  Check.  More than 100 instances of that were found.  Second, the mishandling of that information would have to be either intentional or grossly negligent. defines gross negligence as "a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care."  Reasonable.  Remember that word because Director Comey uses that exact word in his description of the FBI's findings.

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.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
— James Comey

Ok, check.  The information was in an unauthorized location and the removal of that classified information was done in an unreasonable way.  The exact phrase Director Comey used was "extremely careless."  Extremely careless is the exact opposite of reasonable care.  Let me put it to you this way.  If you were driving a car in an extremely careless way and you killed someone, you would be convicted of negligent homicide and you would go to prison.  

So, what is the conclusion the head of our nation's top police agency came to?

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.
— James Comey

Notice how what Director Comey said was not about the facts of the law.  Under the facts, Sec. Clinton broke the law.  He is not recommending prosecution based upon his opinion of what a prosecutor would or would not do.  It's not based upon the law, it's based upon personalities.  

That statement is inconsistent with what Loretta Lynch, his boss, said she would do on Friday of last week.  Comey said he would not recommend charges because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.  But the top prosecutor in the nation said last week she would prosecute based solely on Comey's recommendation.  So, either Comey thinks that Lynch is unreasonable or his logic is unreasonable.  

Finally, Hillary is well connected and is important to individuals who have the ability and inclination to prevent her from being prosecuted.  Today, while Director Comey was announcing that he wouldn't seek the prosecution of the Democrat nominee for President (despite the fact that his investigation clearly demonstrated that she did indeed break the law) Sec. Clinton was on Air Force One with the current President, who also is a Democrat.  This same President endorsed Mrs. Clinton over a month ago, long before the FBI's investigation should have been at a point where they could have come to a conclusion based on all of the facts.  So, that endorsement should have been a very risky move.  Let me ask you, do you think Mr. Obama would have endorsed Clinton if he had the slightest concern that she was going to be indicted?  Remember she's not going to be indicted not because she did nothing wrong. She's not going to be indicted because James Comey doesn't think a prosecutor would file the charges (even though the top prosecutor said she would prosecute if he recommended it).  So, the only reason the President and his legacy aren't being completely embarrassed today is because he got lucky?  Do you believe that?  I'm finding that very hard to believe.  

Here's another issue that's making this difficult to believe. The fact that the FBI was not going to seek charges against Clinton was actually leaked this weekend.  Remember Mrs. Clinton had a three hour interview on Saturday morning.  Before the weekend was over, reporters were being told that no charges were coming.  It doesn't seem likely to me that Mrs. Clinton said something Saturday morning that changed Comey's mind by Saturday afternoon.  Does that seem likely to you?  If that's the case, then the decision not to indict was made, or at least mostly made before Saturday morning.  If a reporter knew about that decision, do you think that either Loretta Lynch or President Obama might have known as well?  

If you really want to know what someone believes, don't listen to what they say, look at what they do.  Obama endorsed Clinton long before this investigation was close to being over.  Lynch met with Clinton's husband alone on a plane last Thursday and the only reason we found out about it was because of some good investigative work by one reporter in Phoenix.  Lynch then says she'll follow Comey's recommendation no matter what.  Comey then says he won't seek charges because a prosecutor wouldn't take them.  All the while, Obama uses your tax money to fly his pal Hillary to a campaign rally on Air Force One.  It takes less of a suspension of disbelief while watching The Avengers movies than it does to believe these things aren't connected.

What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
— James Comey

No, you can't assure the American people of that. I'm an American, and I'm not assured.  

Hillary Clinton broke the law. The FBI uncovered facts that prove she broke the law.  The words that came out of James Comey's mouth admitted those things to be true.  He then chose not to act.  The reasons he chose not to act were not based on the facts of the case nor upon the law as it is written.  The only logical conclusion here is that Hillary Clinton is, by definition, treated differently than you or I would be treated.  

I normally end my podcasts, America on Parr, by saying, "I can still see Old Glory flying over me."  Today, I can't.  The Rule of Law is dead.  It has been replaced by the rule of the victors and as a result, you and I have lost.  America has lost.

James Comey's Statement

Gross Negligence Definition