Let’s be perfectly clear about what FBI Director James Comey did not do Tuesday:
He did not exonerate Hillary Clinton for her exclusive use of a private email account, hosted on an unsecured server in her home, while serving as secretary of state.
He did not wave away her repeated mishandling of classified information as a mere bad decision.
He did not leave a shred of credibility to her many, ever-evolving excuses for her actions, including the claim she handed over all work-related emails (she didn’t), the claim there was no classified information in her email (there was), the claim the information wasn’t classified at the time (much of it was), and the claim she only passively received it (she also actively sent some).
He did not justify her actions, which are plainly contrary to federal law regarding classified information, as somehow legal.
He did not preclude the possibility America’s enemies gained access to the secrets she emailed while present in their territory.
And despite declining to recommend her for prosecution, he did not in any way change or minimize those damning facts.
What he did do is acknowledge one likely truth. No "reasonable" — I'd say "rational" — prosecutor would bring charges against the front-runner for the presidency of the United States just four months before the election, despite the pile of evidence he presented against Clinton.
Maybe you think that’s an appropriate way to avoid a constitutional crisis. Maybe you think it’s an indictment of an American legal system that, not just in this instance, treads more lightly on the powerful than on ordinary folks.
I sympathize with the latter view. But I also recognize Comey gave the American people all the evidence they need to conclude Clinton can’t be trusted to be in the White House for a state dinner, much less to lead the free world.
Clinton can offer no excuse to justify her actions, and no apology that rings true in the face of all her past excuses. Her actions were, as Comey put it, “extremely careless.” They were also selfish, risky, unnecessary and explicitly advised against. Counseled more than once not to rely only on her personal email and a home-brew server, Clinton rejected the advice. The result was an FBI investigation that came up just short of spurring a criminal prosecution but is nonetheless deeply troubling for the stunning lack of judgment it demonstrated on her part.
The bar one must clear to be worthy of our nation’s highest office is higher than “not convicted,” or even “not charged.”
Unfortunately, in this election we are awash in poor judgment and missing character. Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, not only faces fraud cases of his own (related to his Trump University). He also chose Tuesday, the day he should have let the political world marinate in the FBI’s findings about Clinton, to muse fondly, and incorrectly, about the merits of Saddam Hussein’s approach to terrorism.
One candidate’s failings do not excuse the other’s. There are still some intellectually honest conservatives who reject “our” candidate. How about it, liberals?
About the Author
