James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

Americans everywhere should do themselves a favor and buy George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” today because FBI Director James Comey made clear this afternoon that we are living in it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

There really is no way to describe the Twilight Zone-like press conference Mr. Comey gave today regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The man personally and professionally destroyed the former secretary of state for nearly 15 minutes and then concluded with, “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek charges in this instance.

Consider just the following snippets from Mr. Comey’s address to the nation:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. …

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. …

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. …

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Objective Americans know that if they were guilty of a fraction of the negligence shown by Mrs. Clinton during her time as secretary of state that they would be rotting in a jail cell this very moment. The fact that nothing — nothing — will be done to the woman is proof that our country has gone over a cliff. It’s over. The future of the United States is going to be a very dark place, even if there are countless citizens who do not realize they are living in a very real version of Animal Farm.

There are millions of Americans right now who are a.) so blindly partisan that they do not care how dangerous this moment in history is, or b.) so stupid and lazy that high-speed internet streams of NFL football, cat videos, and naked women keep them placated. It would take a miracle of epic proportions to save the country at this point, but at the same time it is right and just for America to reap what it has sown.

This afternoon I tried to discuss the FBI’s decision with a friend and instead of getting visibly angry my eyes just teared up and I thanked God I was behind a computer screen. My wife and I live comfortable lives and we know that we are fortunate to be the right kind of “animal” on this Orwellian estate. My tears are not for myself or the woman I love, but for the generations of Americans to come who will live in country where there are special rules for the elite and well-connected, and then there are rules for everyone else.

If you have a moment, then watch Mr. Comey’s press conference from earlier today. If it turns your stomach, then feel free to throw up your feelings in the comment section below.


Hillary Clinton had beyond ‘top secret’ emails on server. Time to prosecute


HIllary AP

Imagine a world where you are given access to intelligence documents that are classified beyond ‘top secret’ and then you ran them through your own personal email server. How long would it take before you were sent to prison for years? Not long, right? Well, it turns out that Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III found “special access programs,” or SAP, on the Democrat front-runner’s “home-brew” setup.

McCullough wrote Jan. 14 in a letter to Senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other senior lawmakers:

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

The letter was received by Fox News earlier in the week and its contents were not disputed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Hillary Clinton’s response on NPR on Thursday: “I’m just going to leave it up to the professionals at the Justice Department because nothing that this says changes the fact that I never sent or received material marked classified.”

In a different time and a different place, pitchforks, stakes and torches would be out if Mrs. Clinton were not prosecuted for what is obviously a violation of a subsection of the Espionage Act related to “gross negligence” in handling government documents.

When you willfully set up your own email server to avoid Freedom of Information Requests … When you ignore those around you who tell you that is a bad idea … and when the most sensitive intelligence documents in the nation then go through that server, then you are guilty of gross negligence.

Fact. Case closed. There is no way around that.

Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge further explained things on Thursday for those who still do not understand.

“It is the content that is classified – not the format it is in,” said Herridge. “To suggest to people that there is somehow a big rubber stamp with ‘classified’ that’s smacked on every document is completely misleading and that something you only see in the movies. Mrs. Clinton knows better because she had to have special training as secretary of state because she has classification authority.”

Anyone who cares about the rule of law should be shocked and horrified if Mrs. Clinton is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Others, including former CIA Director David Petraeus, were prosecuted for far less.

If the former secretary of state is not prosecuted, then it will send a incontrovertible message to millions of Americans that the “right” people are very much above the rule of law. When that happens, all bets are off.

Liberals to Find “Right to Pornography” In Constitution?

It seems only natural that an ideology that finds rights in "penumbras, formed by emanations" will eventually declare a "right" to pornography.

It’s long been established that liberals can find anything they want in the Constitution. Perhaps the most notable quotation comes from Justice William Douglas, who found rights in, “penumbras, formed by emanations.” However, very quietly, under the public’s radar, influential liberal think tanks have been asserting the latest “right” to be found in the “living document” also known as the U.S. Constitution: the right to pornography.

An amicus brief recently filed before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by disgraced former Senator John Edwards recently laid out the playbook to be used by Progressives. In Wilson vs. The State of California (a case that has remarkably seen little coverage), the “friend of the court” writes:

“Conservatives always talk about universal human rights, and that’s great. But let’s not forget that those rights are rooted in universal human desires. And what is more universal than the human sex drive? Everywhere one looks there are barriers that leave citizens of the United States frustrated. Sexually frustrated. Pursuit of happiness? Not when unscrupulous porn peddlers price gouge with impunity while out-of-touch Republicans tout the free market! We’ve pushed millions into the shadows of the internet and the slums of our cities. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the ability to regulate bodies in motion, whether that motion be rhythmic, stilted, or sensual. By giving every man and woman free access to a safety net of soft-core porn (at a minimum) we will become that much closer to that which our founders envisioned—a more perfect union.”

At a time of unprecedented levels of federal deficit spending, unrest in the Middle East, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and unpoplular health care bills, the liberal “right to pornography” movement has gone largely unnoticed. That might soon change, however, as high-ranking liberals have begun to weigh in. Democratic Senator Harry Reid, infamous for surrendering in Iraq during the darkest days of the war, has made it clear that the fight for free skin is a battle he’s ready for. Speaking before unionized members of the Adult Film Industry in downtown Las Vegas Reid said:

“It’s been said that liberals tend not to believe in God, and that may be true, but if we did I assure you that it would be a lot easier to legitimize a Second Amendment around the God-given basic human desire to procreate than to kill another human being with cold hard steel. You, my friends, are the modern day Paul Reveres. Sure, you ride around on each other instead of horses (usually), but the American people would be much better off listening to you than the Koch brothers, the NRA, or the Tea Party movement.”

While most media outlets have not picked up on the amazing rhetoric, it seems only a matter of time before the story goes viral. If not now then later this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to take up the case. Justice Stephen Breyer, usually tight lipped and professional about such affairs (rightfully, given his role), may have shown his hand. When asked about the case he replied with a grin, “Griswold vs. Connecticut. Griswold vs. Connecticut, baby…”

Update: I was hoping I wouldn’t have to do this. One word: Satire

Update II: Great timing as the Brits confirm that, oh yes, some form of this debate is coming.