By Quin Hillyer at the Washington Examiner, March 13;
Lock her up?
More and more, it appears the Justice Department should have tried to do just that to Hillary Clinton and that only nefarious interference kept the attempt from occurring.
My colleague Becket Adams is correct in writing that newly released testimony by disgraced FBI attorney Lisa Page makes former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch look blatantly dishonest and makes her infamous “tarmac meeting” with former president Bill Clinton look even sleazier than it already had. Specifically, despite sworn assurances to the contrary from Lynch, Page testified that Department of Justice officials repeatedly dissuaded the FBI from building a criminal case against Clinton for “gross negligence” in her handling of classified information.
What bears further comment is the legal importance of the phrase “gross negligence.” Page said DOJ advised FBI lawyers that “gross negligence” was a charge they could not “permissibly bring” against Clinton because it was “too vague.”
This borders on nonsense. “Gross negligence” is not some vaguely interpretive standard the FBI was creatively deciphering from penumbras of the federal criminal code. Instead, it is a specific, enumerated standard for prosecution under Section 793 (f) of the U.S. Code’s chapter on “Espionage and Censorship.” It says anyone in possession of protected information “related to the national defense” who, “through gross negligence, permits” that information to “removed from its proper place of custody,” “shall” be penalized with up to 10 years in prison.
“Gross negligence” may not be as precise as a numerical equation such as 2 plus 2, but it’s hardly a mystical concept understandable only by sages and seers. Instead, it is a basic legal standard, appearing in U.S. laws too many times to count, meaning “a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care.”….
[The full column is here.]
