No, She’s NOT “Too Big to Indict.” Grow Up.

For months, I have said that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for her emails and after the professional left’s collective orgasm over the past 24 hours, I wish I had explained why I knew that before. Despite the pro left losing their collective shit and shouting that “the system is rigged” and trotting out the old saw, “too big to (indict),” what happened here is justice.

That is not to say the system isn’t rigged. In some ways, it is, especially if you’re a Person of Color, and/or you’re poor and/or you are LGBT. And it can be said that it is rigged in favor of politicians in general, especially since Congress has a habit of exempting itself from most of the laws it passes. But in this case, what happened with Hillary Clinton is actual justice. No, she should not be above the law, but she also shouldn’t be below it.

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey took the relatively unusual step of holding a news conference announcing that they were not recommending that the Attorney General indict Hillary Clinton for actions related to her emails. (Source) Now, think about that. If Clinton was “above the law,” as one prominent pro left site put it, or “too big to indict,” as another stated as if it was fact, then why hold the news conference at all? The FBI never holds a press conference to announce that it’s NOT recommending indictment of someone. And it wasn’t like Comey said nothing was wrong; he went on national TV to say that Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in using confidential information. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement; in fact, it put the lie to the assertion that she was given some sort of preferential treatment. It’s much the opposite of that.

It’s understandable, given the tenor of press coverage of the email “scandal.” Look at the big deal they made of the fact that Hillary Clinton was “questioned” by the FBI last Saturday. Do you know what word is missing from most professional left coverage of that meeting? They failed to mention that it was voluntary. Yes, that’s what I said; it was a voluntary meeting. She didn’t have to attend if she didn’t want to. Then, there is the chance meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, who have known each other for more than 20 years. Apparently, because a few immature morons think the only thing the two of them possibly could have talked about what the case against Hillary. As if Bill walked up to Loretta and asked about Hillary’s investigation and Loretta just spilled. Worse, according to some people, she apparently agreed to drop it because Bill asked. No one gets to rise in the ranks of the legal profession by answering every question asked of them. Therefore, talking about grandchildren is far more plausible. (Congratulations to Chelsea on the birth of her new baby, by the way!)

The professional left is breathlessly declaring that Hillary Clinton is receiving favorable treatment when it’s more likely that the opposite is happening. A case can be made that she’s being treated differently, but not in a favorable way. No one gets indicted for these types of offenses, but they also never have to endure their name being dragged through the mud. For example, you may recall that, in the wake of the theft of documents by Edward Snowden, the NSA conducted an audit and found that several employees had compromised data to spy on cheating spouses or to do personal background checks that were not authorized. According to the audit report, those employees were disciplined, but there were no indictments. We know this because the indictments would have been public. By law, they have to be.

Government employees often do stupid shit with classified information. They get fired, they get demoted and they sometimes lose their pensions or pay administrative fines. But to be indicted for a crime, someone has to establish intent to do something bad. That is the norm. There is no rash of criminal complaints every year in which government employees who mishandle classified information are hauled into court and put on trial. It just doesn’t happen. Therefore, if you’re demanding that Hillary be frog-marched and hauled off to federal prison because she replied to a few email chains without checking to make sure there wasn’t classified information attached, you’re actually asking that she be made the exception. That’s not justice.

Justice is about making sure the punishment fits the “crime.” And demanding that a presidential candidate be put on trial for a technical infraction is demanding that she be given special treatment, just in a negative way. Using a private server is not ideal, but she did ask for permission and the GOP had blocked IT upgrades at the State Department for years. That means the State Department had no classified internal server, anyway, so it was either that or use a Yahoo or Gmail account. Is that better? You might want to ask Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell, who also sent and received classified information on a private account. (Source)  And no, I’m not calling for their indictments, either.

Let’s face it; if being careless was a crime, there wouldn’t be enough prisons in the universe. There isn’t a single person whining on social media about how Hillary is getting away with something, or writing on a professional left blog about how Hillary is “too big to be indicted” who could pass that level of scrutiny.

And before you start with, “Yeah, well… she’s running for president!” let me remind you that even the Sanders campaign cheated with the DNC database and Jane Sanders hasn’t been indicted for her mishandling of funds at Burlington College. Not every mistake we make is an indictable criminal offense. In fact, when it comes to mishandling classified information, it is required that prosecutors prove both “bad faith” and “intent.” It’s the same for you as it is for Hillary Clinton.

Thank goodness, right?