You didn’t have to be a brain surgeon in order to accurately predict today’s events. As I noted in a short post a couple days ago, Hillary Clinton will not be charged for using a private email account when she should have been using an official government one, with all the protections that implies. The FBI Director James Comey did almost exactly what I said he would do. He came out and explained that Hillary would not be charged, then he criticized her and threw some shade in the direction of her staff and campaign. I don’t disparage anyone who thought she might actually have to pay for her criminality, I just knew for fact that she would not. The top people in American governance rarely do.
However, Comey did provide some ready-made talking points for the Trump campaign…
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account…
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past…
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…
Hillary can talk all the shit she wants about Trump’s erratic business record or controversial statements, but the fact of the matter is that she put US national security at risk with her brazen mishandling of classified information. Even though the FBI declined to recommend prosecution, this can end up giving a big boost to Trump…if he plays his cards right.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750352884106223616
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750353319084843008
That play needs to be somewhat moderate, though. If I was him, I would focus on the unfairness aspect rather than the criminality (which he seems to be doing). Talk about how any regular person at the State Department or elsewhere would get charged for similar violations. Only the Clinton name saved Hillary. In fact, the Clinton name is the thing that has propelled her throughout her public life. That’s the thread you want going through people’s mind. The monarchical aspects of the Clinton family and how they play by a different set of rules than almost anyone else.
If Trump continues to stay relatively disciplined (at least for him), this could pay dividends if it ends up registering in the minds of independents and wavering Democrats (like those who supported Bernie Sanders, for instance).
