“Comey’s Law” Revisited

BY JIM O’NEILL
As outlined in Comey’s speech exonerating Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing “Comey’s Law” may be summarized as follows: “Unless one intends to break the law, then no law has in fact been broken…unless they are not, in which case they are.”
That last bit refers to the fact that if one is not a Clinton then the first part of “Comey’s Law” does not apply, and the individual in question is indeed guilty of breaking the law, whether they did it intentionally or not. (See “Exhibit A” former US Navy sailor Kristian Saucier).
After stating that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Hillary Clinton, Comey helpfully clarifies things by adding the following caveat:
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.
“To be clear” — yes, by all means let’s be clear about all this. (Helpful hint: by “security or administrative sanctions” Comey means being thrown into prison).
At the beginning of his statement Comey informs us that “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that [i.e. Clinton’s] personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way…” (italics added).
To be clear, Comey later informs us that Clinton did not act in a “grossly negligent” manner, but merely in an “extremely careless” manner. Apples and oranges, right? Who could ever confuse the two?
To be even more clear, Comey tells us that in no way did Clinton intend to break the law, ergo she is obviously innocent (as any reasonable prosecutor would tell you).
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct…or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, apparently the intention to break the law needs to be present, and/or “vast quantities” of classified material needs to be involved in order to break the law. Seems a shame that Kristian Saucier’s lawyer was unaware of these legal statutes.
I have to admit to being puzzled however by Comey’s statement that “We do not see those things here” – referring to “intentional misconduct or efforts to obstruct justice.” Did not Clinton’s minions “willfully and intentionally” attempt to hide tens of thousands of subpoenaed emails, BleachBit hard drives, and physically smash others to bits? Why is that not considered obstruction of justice? Oh well, I guess as Director of the FBI Comey must have known what he was talking about, right?
Let’s be clear. Comey knew what he was talking about all right. His stunning exoneration of Clinton, filled with duplicity and verbal razzle-dazzzle, will no doubt stand as a prime example of legal-weaselese for future students of law.
As We the People prepare for the IG’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton server “matter,” I thought that a refresher on “Comey’s Law” might be in order. Laus Deo, power to the people!