7/6/2016

LawsAreforLittlePeopleWSJ

Thiscopyisforyourpersonal,noncommercialuseonly.Toorderpresentationreadycopiesfordistributiontoyourcolleagues,clientsorcustomersvisit
http://www.djreprints.com.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsareforlittlepeople1467742661

OPINION | BEST OF THE WEB

Laws Are for Little People

Comey delivers an indictment but wont seek one.

By JAMES TARANTO
July 5, 2016 2:17 p.m. ET
The Daily Callers Chuck Ross wrote a clever lead for a piece yesterday: On Tuesday, for
the first time in U.S. history, a sitting American president will campaign with a
presidential candidate who is the subject of an FBI investigation.
But it was overtaken by events. This morning FBI director James Comey announced the
investigation was over. He detailed its findings, which are damning and in many cases
new, and which prove that most of Mrs. Clintons public statements about her private
email server were lies. Lying to the public isnt a crime, but handling classified
information in a grossly negligent way is.
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, Comey said. Would that be a synonym for grossly negligent?
Apparently not. Comeys bottom line is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such
a case.
That even though he also saidin reference to seven email chains concerning matters
that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level: There is evidence
to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clintons 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.
After announcing his no-charge recommendation, Comey added:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsareforlittlepeople1467742661

1/8

7/6/2016

LawsAreforLittlePeopleWSJ

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.
In other words, laws are for little people.
The FBI conducted a thorough investigation, its directors cowardice or cynicism
notwithstanding. Comey said agents read all of the approximately 30,000 [printouts of ]
emails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Those
that might contain classified information were checked with the government agency
that owns the information:
From the group of 30,000 [printouts of ] emails returned to the State Department,
110 emails in 52 email 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.
The bureau also was able to recover some of several thousand work-related emails that
were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in
2014i.e., those that Mrs. Clinton or her lawyers deleted before making the printouts
for the State Department. Three of those deleted emails were classified at the time they
were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.
The Comey announcement came after an eventful week. Last Tuesday, as we noted,
Attorney General Loretta Lynchwho will make the final decision whether to prosecute
held a tte--tte with Bill Clinton aboard her private jet at Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airport. On Friday, the New York Times reported, Lynch acknowledged the meeting had
cast a shadow over the investigation of Mrs. Clinton, but refused to recuse herself.
She did say, in the Timess words, that she would accept whatever recommendations
career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the
case. How convenient.
Yesterday the Times reported that Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say [that if elected]
she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nations first black woman to be attorney
general, who took office in April 2015. Some might call that a conflict of interest, but in
Clintonworld its known as a win-win.
So what now? The Associated Press reports Mrs. Clintons campaign has already
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsareforlittlepeople1467742661

2/8

7/6/2016

LawsAreforLittlePeopleWSJ

pronounced itself pleased that the matter is now resolved; before sundown there
will no doubt be calls from professional Democrats and media hacks to move on.
But as the Washington Posts Dan Balz noted Saturday (in a piece about the LynchClinton plane powwow), unlike earlier Clinton adversaries, Donald Trump is not likely
to let this go:
Trumps campaign advisers long have seen the investigation as a win-win
politically: Either [Mrs.] Clinton is indicted and a major political crisis occurs for
the Democrats or, if there is no case brought, the whole exercise was a whitewash.
He can argue it round or square. If there is to be no charge against [Mrs.] Clinton,
Trump will point to the Lynch-Clinton meeting to question the integrity of the
Justice Departments decision. He has been handed a gift, and the Republican base
is likely to respond with even greater indignation if no penalty is sought.
Balzs headline is telling: How Everyone Looks Bad Because Bill Clinton Met With
Loretta Lynch. We immediately disproved the premise by checking the mirror; we still
look fabulous. As Balz more or less acknowledges, the Lynch-Clinton huddle doesnt
make Trump look bad either (though to be sure, there are other things that do).
So whom does it make look bad, other than the Clintons, Lynch, Comey, President
Obama and others in the administration and the Democratic Party? Perhaps Balz has in
mind people in the press who are rooting for Mrs. Clinton even though theyre supposed
to be neutral.
The Clintons brazenness makes them look terrible. Well bet it makes them feel terrible
too. But as we observed in February with respect to elderly feminists loyalty to the
Clintons, when you give up your integrity to defend someone, you are all the more
invested in the defense.
Will Mrs. Clinton pay a political price for her dishonesty and her cavalier attitude
toward national security? This columnist is too cynical to be confident that she will,
though not quite cynical enough to give up all hope. Not yet anyway.
Fox Butterfield, Is That You?
Gun Show in Raleigh Packed Despite Spotlight on Lawsheadline, WTVD-TV website
(Raleigh, N.C.), July 2
We Blame George W. Bush
#BREAKING: Orangutan loose at @BuschGardens. Park evacuated.tweet, Tampa
Bay Times, July 1
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsareforlittlepeople1467742661

3/8