The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross composed a smart lead for a piece the other day: On Tuesday, for the very first time in U.S. history, a sitting American president will project with a governmental candidate who is the topic of an FBI examination.

He detailed its findings, which are damning and in lots of cases new, and which show that many of Mrs. Clinton s public declarations about her personal email server were lies. Lying to the public isn’t a criminal offense, but handling classified information in a grossly negligent way is.


We did not find clear proof that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of categorized info, there is proof that they were extremely reckless in their handling of really sensitive, highly categorized information, Comey stated. Would that be a synonym for grossly irresponsible? Obviously not. Comey s bottom line is that no reasonable district attorney would bring such a case.

That although he likewise said in reference to 7 email chains worrying matters that were classified on top Secret/Special Access Program level: There is proof to support a conclusion that any sensible individual in Secretary Clinton s position, or in the position of those civil servant with whom she was corresponding about these matters, need to have understood that an unclassified system was no place for that discussion.

After announcing his no-charge recommendation, Comeyincluded.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in comparable scenarios, a person who participated in this activity would deal with no repercussions. To the contrary, those people are often based on security or management sanctions. However, that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, laws are for dwarfs.

The FBI carried out an extensive investigation, its director s cowardice or cynicism notwithstanding. Comey stated representatives read all the approximately 30,000 [printouts of] e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Those that may include categorized information were checked with the federal government firm that owns the information.

***EXCLUSIVE*** PARAGOMINAS, BRAZIL - UNDATED: Brazilian dwarf footballers Raílson, Nego and Pety relaxing on the bench during a training session in Paragominas, Brazil. WITH his silky skills and eye for goal, 27-year-old Casemiro is every inch the Brazilian footballer - 39 inches to be precise. The tiny striker, known as 'Wagner Love', is the star player for the country's top Dwarf football team: The Gigantes do Norte. And far from being a laughing stock, this talented group of 'Ronald-tinios' are playing - and beating - teams almost twice their size. They use full-size pitches and goals but are allowed to bend one rule: they can carry a teammate on their shoulder's when defending a free-kick. Their coach says some players would easily be professionals if they were born taller. The team, whose name means the Giants of the North, are based in Belem, Para State, North Brazil. They are credited with helping combat prejudice against dwarfs. PHOTOGRAPH BY Antonio Cicero / Barcroft Media UK Office, London. T +44 845 370 2233 W USA Office, New York City. T +1 212 796 2458 W Indian Office, Delhi. T +91 11 4053 2429 W

8 of those chains consisted of information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent out; 36 chains included Secret info at the time; and 8 consisted of Confidential information, which is the most affordable level of classification.

The bureau likewise had the ability to recuperate a few of several thousand job-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014 i.e., those that Mrs. Clinton or her legal representatives erased prior to making the hard copies for the State Department. 3 of those erased emails were classified at the time they were sent or gotten, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

The Comey statement came after an eventful week. Last Tuesday, as we noted, Attorney General Loretta Lynch who will make the decision whether to prosecute held a t te– t te with Bill Clinton aboard her private jet at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. On Friday, the New York Times reported, Lynch acknowledged the conference had cast a shadow over the examination of Mrs. Clinton, however refused to recuse herself.

She did state, in the Times words, that she would accept whatever suggestions profession prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case. How practical.

Yesterday the Times reported that Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton state [that if elected] she may choose to maintain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s very first black woman to be chief law officer, who took office in April 2015. Some may call that a dispute of interest, but in Clintonworldit’s called a win-win.

What now? The Associated Press reports Mrs. Clinton s campaign has already noticeable itself pleased that the matter is now resolved; before sundown there will no doubt be calls from expert Democrats and media hacks to carry on.

8616f25115bb975f2a6103978767e039As the Washington Post’s Dan Balz kept in mind Saturday (in a piece about the Lynch-Clinton airplane powwow), unlike earlier Clinton foes, Donald Trump is not likely to let this go.

Clinton is arraigned and a major political crisis occurs for the Democrats or, if there is no case brought, the whole exercise was a whitewash. Clinton, Trump will point to the Lynch-Clinton meeting to question the stability of the Justice Departments choice. He has been handed a gift, and the Republican base is most likely to react with even higher indignation if no charge is looked for.

Balz’s headline is informing: How Everyone Looks Bad Because Bill Clinton Met With Loretta Lynch. We right away negated the facility by inspecting the mirror; we still look fabulous. As Balz basically acknowledges, the Lynch-Clinton huddle doesn’t make Trump look bad either (though to be sure, there are other things that do).

Whom does it make appearance 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 journalism who are rooting for Mrs. Clinton even though they’re supposed to be neutral.

2_c_facebook.comThe Clintons brazenness makes them look dreadful. We’ll bet it makes them feel awful too. But as we observed in February with respect to elderly feminist’s loyalty to the Clintons, when you give up your stability to defend somebody, you are all the more bought the defense.

Will Mrs. Clinton pay a political price for her dishonesty and her cavalier mindset toward nationwide security? This writer is too cynical to be confident that she will, though not quite negative sufficient to give up all hope. Not yet anyhow.