‘Grave concerns’ may have been a grave mistake
Last week, James Comey strongly defended the government’s decision not to prosecute the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee over her private email setup while secretary of state. During four hours of questioning by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey said there was no evidence Clinton knew that anything she was doing was against the law – and no evidence that she had lied to federal investigators.
Double standard is ‘corrosive’
A conservative columnist says it’s bad for an entire country when public servants are handed what amounts to a “get out of jail free card.”
Robert Knight is a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for OneNewsNow.com and The Washington Times.
“I think it’s corrosive when public servants seem to get off either on technicalities or because they’re so big that charges won’t stick – and of course, you probably know I’m talking about Hillary Clinton,” he tells OneNewsNow.
“What does that tell the average person?” he continues. “[It says] that if you’re big enough, you’ll get away with it – and if you’re small enough, they’ll go after you. It breeds cynicism, it breeds lawlessness. It’s not good for us.”
Knight is disturbed that, according to some polls, a majority of Democrats say they would vote for Hillary Clinton even if she is indicted.
“They’re basically saying [that] the law doesn’t matter anymore, [that] honesty doesn’t matter, I just want what is mine,” he suggests. [It’s] the ‘free-stuff army’ rising up and saying We want more government to take from people who work and give it to those who don’t work because it’s our right.”
And that, he says, is a very disturbing worldview.
While Comey testified the year-long investigation was conducted in “an apolitical and a professional way,” a number of Republicans – and even some Democrats – have suggested a double standard exists for charging everyday people accused of crimes as opposed to politically powerful individuals like Clinton.
“If your name isn’t Clinton, or you’re not part of the powerful elite, then Lady Justice will act differently,” noted committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).
J. Christian Adams, founder of the Election Law Center, is a former DOJ attorney.
“The FBI director said that the Justice Department lawyers had – quote, unquote – ‘grave concerns’ about the statute involved, nearly hinting that it might be unconstitutional for vagueness.”
And that, he adds, tells him “this is not an FBI decision [but] this is a DOJ decision.”
Adams agrees it will now be up to the American public to hold Clinton accountable in November.
“… [T]he election is the only answer left – unless, of course, she lied to Congress in her testimony,” he adds. “But once again, you’re faced with a Justice Department that doesn’t want to prosecute Hillary.”
The solution, he says, is to get a Justice Department that “follows what the law says – not what they wish the law was.”
In an interview last week with radio talk-show host Mark Levin, Adams went into greater detail on his assertion that Comey’s remark about “grave concerns” tells him “it was DOJ that sabotaged this [case], not the FBI.”
Levin stated that Adams’ argument is “incredibly important for the public to understand.”
“Your point,” Levin directed to Adams, “is that [the outcome of the investigation] was baked in the cake because the prosecutors [at the DOJ] were saying We’re not going to take a case like this.”
Adams concluded the interview with this statement: “This is a Loretta Lynch ministerial bureaucracy decision – it’s not an FBI decision.”