NEWS RELEASE: Barr blasts FBI decision not to proceed against Hillary Clinton
Former U.S. Attorney Finds FBI Statement Naïve and Passive
From my perspective as a former U.S. Attorney representing the Northern district of Georgia (appointed by President Reagan) whose office conducted numerous high profile public corruption cases including prosecution and conviction of a sitting member of Congress and numerous other officials; having served 8 years on the Judiciary Committee and as a manager of the 1999 Senate trial of President Bill Clinton after he was impeached by the House: the FBI’s conclusion that its investigation gives them “reasonable confidence” that there’s no “intentional misconduct” by the Clinton team seems rather naïve at best.
Overall, the statement is passive and chose a clear disinterest in proceeding to recommend charges be brought against Clinton even though they admitted finding her in violation of “a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” In light of that finding by the FBI, I find the Bureau’s statement that “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” towards the infraction of the deliberate mishandling of classified information rather docile.
While perhaps its true that many prosecutors …show more content…
For example, the FBI ‘s apparent silence in regard to the deletion of the many emails by the Clinton team constituted a deliberate effort to prevent the FBI or others in accessing or reviewing said emails. It is apparent that Clinton staffers removed classification markings when sending electronic correspondence to Hillary so that she could “technically” cite that no classified information was transmitted (because the operative markings were omitted). It would appear to me – if that is not a deliberate effort to violate the law – one would be hard-pressed to find that it
Former U.S. Attorney Finds FBI Statement Naïve and Passive
From my perspective as a former U.S. Attorney representing the Northern district of Georgia (appointed by President Reagan) whose office conducted numerous high profile public corruption cases including prosecution and conviction of a sitting member of Congress and numerous other officials; having served 8 years on the Judiciary Committee and as a manager of the 1999 Senate trial of President Bill Clinton after he was impeached by the House: the FBI’s conclusion that its investigation gives them “reasonable confidence” that there’s no “intentional misconduct” by the Clinton team seems rather naïve at best.
Overall, the statement is passive and chose a clear disinterest in proceeding to recommend charges be brought against Clinton even though they admitted finding her in violation of “a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” In light of that finding by the FBI, I find the Bureau’s statement that “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” towards the infraction of the deliberate mishandling of classified information rather docile.
While perhaps its true that many prosecutors …show more content…
For example, the FBI ‘s apparent silence in regard to the deletion of the many emails by the Clinton team constituted a deliberate effort to prevent the FBI or others in accessing or reviewing said emails. It is apparent that Clinton staffers removed classification markings when sending electronic correspondence to Hillary so that she could “technically” cite that no classified information was transmitted (because the operative markings were omitted). It would appear to me – if that is not a deliberate effort to violate the law – one would be hard-pressed to find that it