The New America
By Herbert London
FamilySecurityMatters.org
On July 4th I,
like millions of Americas, celebrated the 240th year
of our national independence. I celebrated, as well,
the unique character of a nation based on the rule
of law, a state where every person is to be treated
equally under the laws of the land.
On July 5 at 10 am. I saw a new American nation
ushered in by the director of the FBI, James Comey.
This new American nation no longer follows a rule of
law. The prevailing sentiment is a rule of influence
and power. What is true for a designated elite is
not true for the rest of us. Equality under the law
has been Latin Americanized. It is as if Cesar
Chavez was running the U.S. judicial system.
Before James Comey said no reasonable prosecutor
would pursue this case against Hillary Clinton, he
added language to the federal statute which made his
case for dismissal. Comey used the word "intent," a
word that does not appear in any of the State
Department protocols.
In fact, in the first ten minutes of his surprise
presentation Comey makes an effective case for
indictment suggesting: 1. The former Secretary of
State was extremely careless with national security
secrets; 2. It is not reasonable to assume anyone in
her position of authority and sensitivity would put
emails on a private server; 3. One hundred and ten
emails on the server were classified "at the time
they were sent" knowingly endangering national
security and clearly indicating Hillary Clinton lied
consistently; 4. Hillary Clinton deleted emails
before turning them over to State Department
officials as the law requires; 5. It is "likely"
foreign governments have hacked her emails, although
evidence supporting this claim is not dispositive.
In listing the charges against Ms. Clinton one is
left with the impression of gross negligence and
arrogance about the law under which she served. What
applies to some does not apply to her, a point made
throughout her life.
In similar circumstances, John Deutch, former
director of the CIA and David Petraeus, head of
Central Command were both fined and excoriated for
infractions of a similar, but lesser nature. Hillary
has gone off scot free, indicating this entire
imbroglio was a misunderstanding and, of course, she
made a mistake.
For many, the charges in question are far more
egregious then the Comey recommendation suggests. If
special access programs (SAP), the highest level of
security involving the entire intelligence apparatus
of the U.S., was put at risk, Clinton engaged in
what could accurately be called treasonous behavior.
Seven of the 110 classified documents were SAP.
It is also odd that attorney General Loretta Lynch
met former president Bill Clinton several days
before the Comey statement. At the time, Lynch said
I made a mistake in meeting Clinton. In the
aftermath of press criticism, Ms. Lynch went on to
say that she would recuse herself from the
investigation or rely on the FBI recommendations.
Did Lynch know what those recommendations might be
when she met with President Clinton?
What so many in the media blog fail to see is that this investigation is not only a story about Hillary Clinton. It is a saga about legal adjudication. If the law of the land does not apply to the Clintons - as appears to be the case - why should it apply to anyone else? If intent is the overarching issue in determining culpability, is the thief to be found innocent when he says I took the necklace from the shelf because I thought it was mine, "I never intended to steal it."
What Comey has done is besmirch his own reputation, compromised the FBI and served as a midwife for the New America parented by Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch. Cesar Chavez must be having a good laugh from the depths of hell.
Herbert London is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the President of the London Center for Policy Research. He is the author of the book The Transformational Decade (University Press of America).