{"id":29558,"date":"2016-10-31T08:48:49","date_gmt":"2016-10-31T12:48:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=29558"},"modified":"2016-10-31T08:48:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T12:48:49","slug":"i-guess-it-depends-on-whose-ox-is-being-gored","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=29558","title":{"rendered":"I Guess It Depends On Whose Ox Is Being Gored"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have to admit that I have somewhat mixed emotions about watching the Clintons squirm as new information about the email investigation comes out. Although Hillary Clinton<\/a> is the only person responsible for the mess she is in, the mess beautifully reflects the ethics of the Democratic party and the Justice Department in recent elections. The difference is that after the election, if Hillary Clinton loses, the charges won’t go away. Handling classified information<\/a> is a serious responsibility. People who have positions that require a security clearance are investigated thoroughly and educated on the handling procedures for classified information. Whether this was done in the case of Hillary Clinton remains a question.<\/p>\n

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff<\/a> at Power Line<\/a> posted an article about the email investigation.<\/p>\n

He reminded us:<\/p>\n

The prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens \u2014 found to be without merit and, indeed, abusive by a federal judge \u2014 influenced the Senator\u2019s election (he lost a close one). Comey<\/a>\u2019s statement this summer that Hillary Clinton would not be charged was viewed, correctly, as influencing the election. (I didn\u2019t hear anyone complain that Comey announced that decision, though there were complaints about the decision he announced, as well as his lengthy summary of the evidence). Comey\u2019s decision to investigate Clinton in the first place also had the potential to influence the election.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul Mirengoff also reminded us that the claim that the letter to Congress<\/a> stating that the investigation was being reopened was against Justice Department policy is not entirely true:<\/p>\n

“Comey\u2019s decision contrary to policy,\u201d shrieked the lead headline in today\u2019s Washington Post<\/a> (paper edition; online headline is similar). But what policy did Comey violate?<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the very end of their article Post writers Sari Horowitz, Tom Hamburger and Ellen Nakashima cite a 2012 Justice Department memo by Eric Holder<\/a>. It states that employees \u201cmust be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department\u2019s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.\u201d If anything, it seems to me<\/a> that Comey has been too sensitive about playing the Clinton investigation down the middle, giving something to both sides in the election.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Holder\u2019s memo went on to say that if an employee faces \u201ca question regarding the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election,\u201d he should contact the department\u2019s public integrity section \u201cfor further guidance.\u201d Comey reportedly did seek guidance from top Justice Department officials<\/a> (I\u2019m not sure about the public integrity section). As one Justice Department official told the Post, \u201cDirector Comey understood our position; he heard it from Justice leadership.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the same Justice Department that began its term by dropping the voter intimidation\u00a0 charges against the New Black Panthers<\/a> in Philadelphia. Frankly, I find tall people with billy clubs intimidating, evidently the Justice Department didn’t see it that way.<\/p>\n

Remember the video?
\n