Cruz Nails Comey: How Would You Handle an FBI Agent Who Did This?

This really doesn’t seem that difficult. Negligent handling of classified government information is a crime, whether you intend to be negligent or not.

Hillary Clinton negligently handled classified government information. So did her top aide, Huma Abedin, who routinely forwarded classified government information to her husband, Anthony Weiner. Not just one or two pieces of classified information. Hundreds of pieces from thousands of emails – all to a man who lacked security clearance.

Hillary and Huma both say they didn’t mean to do it. It doesn’t matter. People who kill their children by an act of carelessness don’t intend to do so. That’s the very definition of negligence – by failing to take reasonable care, something bad happens.

And since the law forbids negligence, it doesn’t matter whether there was intent or not – it’s still a crime demanding prosecution.  Again, not difficult. Yet the embattled FBI Director James Comey decided that a lack of intent to break the law meant that both Hillary and Huma could walk without consequences.

At least one guy in the U.S. Senate was not pleased with that decision. Ted Cruz grilled Comey relentlessly over his inexplicable decision, and as you would expect, it didn’t go well for Comey:

“You described the reason why the case was closed against Ms. Abedin as that you could not determine she was aware her conduct was unlawful…Any first year law student learns in criminal law ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that mens rea does not require knowledge that conduct is unlawful.

In fact, the governing statutes – 18 USC 793f and 18 USC 798a – have no requirement of a knowledge of unlawful [intent]…under the terms of that statute, the fact pattern you described in this hearing [of Abedin’s behavior] seems to fit that statute directly. In that, if I understood you correctly, you said Ms. Abedin forwarded hundreds or thousands of classified emails to her husband on a non-government, non-classified computer. How does that conduct not directly violate that statute?”

The best response for Comey would have been to simply cue the sound of crickets. Instead, he attempted to answer by suggesting that company practice “for generations” has been to require intent even if the law doesn’t call for it. In other words, Comey admits that he arrived at his conclusion not to prosecute Abedin (or Clinton) not on the basis of the law, but his own preference.

Cruz was understandably incredulous:

“On its face, anyone dealing with classified information should know that conduct is impermissible. And let me ask you, how would you handle an FBI Agent who forwarded thousands of classified emails to his or her spouse on a non-government computer?”

Ouch. Obviously everyone of us knows the answer, but Comey decided to pretend like we didn’t:

“I’m highly confident they wouldn’t be prosecuted.”

Unless they’re affiliated with Clinton, Inc., rational people are highly confident that’s not the case.

Dems Manufacture Smoke Then Pull Fire Alarm

Yesterday’s House of Representative Intelligence Committee hearing proved how adroit Democrats have become at fomenting disingenuous talking points and outright falsehoods in their attempt to paint President Trump as an impeachable charlatan. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff provides an excellent analysis: (Powerline)

“…the hearing was worthwhile for me because it provided an opportunity to hear the Democrats explain why they suspect, or purport to suspect, the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians. Ranking Member Adam Schiff set forth that case in his 15 minute opening statement. Rep. Jim Himes added a few points later on. I now have a better understanding of what former acting CIA director Mike Morell means by “the smoke” regarding “the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians.” Morell made it clear that he sees “no fire, at all,” not even “a spark.” (Emphasis Mine)

Although no accusation was presented with anything close to evidence, what was evident was their prep work in presenting a coherent if not viable “connect the dots” circumstantial argument. Mr. Mirengoff continues:

“To support an inference of collusion, the Democrats need to show that Russia received (or was promised) something by the Trump campaign in exchange for interfering with the election. Rep. Schiff pointed to two benefits he says Trump has bestowed on Russia: (1) the softening of a plank on Ukraine at the GOP convention and (2) Trump’s call on NATO members to meet their monetary commitments. Questions asked by some Democratic members this morning seemed to bolster the view that certain key members of the Trump team have long been more sympathetic to the Russian position on Ukraine than many in the GOP are. Rep. Schiff also emphasized that Roger Stone predicted the release of John Podesta’s emails before it happened.”

This is where the Dems run into a brick wall of a problem. Their own spy director James Clapper admitted no evidence exists pointing to any Russia Trump Campaign collusion: (NBC Transcript MTP)

CHUCK TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, “our,” that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?

JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

CHUCK TODD: If it existed, it would have been in this report?

JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.

CHUCK TODD: At some–

JAMES CLAPPER: But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.

CHUCK TODD: There’s a lot of smoke, but there hasn’t been that smoking gun yet. At what point should the public start to wonder if this is all just smoke?

JAMES CLAPPER: Well, that’s a good question. I don’t know. I do think, though, it is in everyone’s interest, in the current President’s interests, in the Democrats’ interests, in the Republican interest, in the country’s interest, to get to the bottom of all this. Because it’s such a distraction. And certainly the Russians have to be chortling about the success of their efforts to sow dissention in this country.

CHUCK TODD: So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom– you admit your report that you released in January doesn’t get to the bottom of this?

JAMES CLAPPER: It did– well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that’s become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don’t know.

CHUCK TODD: There was a conclusion that said, “It’s clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump.” Do you still believe that conclusion?

JAMES CLAPPER: Yes, I do.

CHUCK TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion

JAMES CLAPPER: That’s correct.

Having been thwarted in their ability to directly tie President Trump to Russia, the Democrats on the committee focused on Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Paige, and their dealings within Russia and the Ukraine. All to no effect: (Townhall):

“It has now been officially confirmed, with the permission of the Justice Department, that the FBI is engaged in an investigation into the Kremlin’s activities, including whether or not anyone in Trump’s orbit was coordinating or colluding with Russia during the campaign. That probe is active and ongoing, with an undetermined termination date. So far there is zero evidence of improper collusion; even the very media reports that have fueled various rumors and accusations quoted unnamed official sources who’ve conceded as much, and who’ve further stated that the alleged contacts were not even necessarily unusual in nature.”

Without the bother of fact, the Democrats were able to accomplish their objectives,

1) Provide a series of TV sized sound bites suitable for the edit happy newsrooms of CNN, CBS and MSNBC.

2) Ignore the felonious intelligence leaks provided by Obama sycophants meanwhile changing the narrative from  “felon” to “respected and admired whistleblower”.

That is all they wanted to accomplish yesterday. Provide talking points to continue propagating their “Red Scare Meets Donald Trump” scenario. Create smoke. Pull the fire alarm. Scream fire. Hope for some of the dirt to stick. Rinse. Repeat. The one positive in the midst of all of this artificial smoke is the fact that President Trump continues to enact his conservative governing agenda without successful MSM resistance.