Negligence amounts to intent with Clinton
In July, FBI Director James Comey reported that while secretary of state, Hillary Clinton illegally used private e-mail servers for official communications, putting national secrets at risk of being discovered by our nation’s many enemies.
His reason for not recommending she be prosecuted was that she did not appear to have intended to do that, Comey added.
That may explain why the FBI has reopened its investigation of Clinton.
The presidential candidate herself alternately claims not to know why, then insists there is no evidence against her. But there is — and it goes straight to intent.
Many people are aware of civil lawsuits won by people who contend they were harmed by the action or inaction of other individuals, companies or organizations. In many of those situations, no one actually meant to create a dangerous situation. It was their negligence in guarding against such risk that, in a court’s eyes, amounted to intent.
There was ample evidence of Clinton’s negligence previously.
Now, however, the FBI is looking at e-mails sent to and by Huma Abedin, Clinton’s aide now and at the State Department. Those e-mails turned up on a computer used by Abedin’s estranged husband, admitted sexual pervert Anthony Weiner.
Handling sensitive State Department e-mails so negligently that Weiner even had access to them amounts to extreme negligence.
It also raises the question of other negligence not yet uncovered by the FBI.
Many voters already have decided Clinton’s ego-fed refusal to follow the rules disqualifies her from the presidency. Now, she has reason to worry a grand jury will view her misbehavior as a crime.