The New America

 

By Herbert London
FamilySecurityMatters.org

On July 4^th I, like millions of Americas, celebrated the 240^th 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.