“There is a basis for the Department of Justice to come to a different conclusion”
Steve Watson | Infowars.com – JULY 6, 2016
While practically everyone in America was shaking their heads over the fact that Hillary Clinton will not face any repercussions over her use of a private email server to disseminate classified information, President Obama stood next to Clinton herself and told a crowd that no one is more qualified to be President the she is.
Speaking in Charlotte, North Carolina Obama told a crowd that “Hillary Clinton has been tested.”
Obama: No man or woman has ever been more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton
“She has seen up close what’s involved in making those decisions. She has participated in the meetings in whose decisions have been made. She’s seen the consequences of things working well and things not working well, and there has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton. Ever. And that’s the truth. That’s the truth.” Obama said.
“So the bottom line is I know Hillary can do the job,” Obama added. “And that’s why I am so proud, North Carolina, to endorse Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the country was still trying to wrap their heads around perhaps the most bizarre decision federal investigators have ever reached – NOT to indict Clinton for careless handling of classified material.
FBI head James Comey essentially admitted that it was a fact that Hillary and her staff broke the law, but said that charges will not be brought because “no reasonable prosecutor” would take on the case.
Joseph diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, described Comey’s comments as an “absurdity in light of the conclusions that [the FBI] reached.”
“How can he spend 15 minutes describing a series of crimes being committed … and then he says no reasonable prosecutor [would prosecute]?” said diGenova. “That is ridiculous. I consider myself a reasonable prosecutor and I would have brought charges based on the facts that he accumulated.”
“The standard under the statute is gross negligence.” diGenova urged.
“[Comey] described the conduct as ‘extremely careless,’” said diGenova. “To me that is worse. His conclusion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges is completely inconsistent with his recitation of the facts and the law.”
“As a result of what he did today this will never die,” added diGenova. “The public will have more to say about this even if the Bureau and the Justice Department and the president and Mrs. Clinton don’t. This is not going to go away especially after this bizarre performance.”
Another former US attorney, Matthew Whitaker, now head of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, described Comey’s logic as highly unusual.
“He said no ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would file a case. That’s where he steps out of his role as FBI director,” said Whitaker. “It’s not his decision to make at all.”
Clinton’s trustworthiness remains in question
“[FBI investigators] essentially just tell you here’s the facts and here’s the law, and the law has or hasn’t been violated—it’s a strange situation,” noted Whitaker. “And I’ve never seen an FBI director or agent or anybody stand up in front of the media and go through their analysis of the case and the facts. The whole thing is unprecedented.”
Jacob Frenkel, a former Department of Justice attorney also weighed in, saying that the outcome of the case is ‘troubling’.
“What I found a little bit more troubling is the continued and repeated reference to intent.” Frenkel noted.
Former DOJ Attorney: Based On Comey’s Statement, Clinton Could Have Been Prosecuted
“They found no evidence of intent. There was one other point that he made during the press conference that I found a little bit troubling, which was they could not find any other such case historically,” Frenkel added.
“As to the issue of intent, he did describe what I would call a significant pattern, a significant practice, that there is a substitute in the law for criminal intent.” the attorney continued.
“In lay terms, it’s the ostrich head in the sand. In legal terms, it’s called deliberate ignorance or willful blindness or conscious avoidance. That is a point that he did not address and it certainly sounds like the type of situation that a reasonable prosecutor in other circumstances involving somebody who is not the secretary of state may well have considered finding that there is a legal substitute for criminal intent. As to not find such a case historically, that to me, flies somewhat in the face of a lot of other aggressive prosecution theories that the Department of Justice always does not hesitate to reach out and bring.” Frenkel stated.
The former DOJ official concluded that, despite the FBI’s decision, the case could be taken up by the DOJ.
“I think the Department of Justice, senior prosecutors, certainly can review this and I think there is a basis for the Department of Justice to come to a different conclusion,” Frenkel said.
The media reaction to the FBI’s findings was one of dumbfoundedness. For months news anchors have poured over the repeated lies and obfuscations emanating from the Clinton camp, while listening to legal experts tell them that Hillary would almost certainly face criminal charges.
Media shreds Hillary Clinton after FBI report on email conduct | SUPERcuts! #337