“These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.” – Anacharsis the Scythian (speaking with Solon).

So it is as it has always been. Today a woman with power and wealth once against tore to shreds American law. Hillary Clinton may have broken the law but she won’t be prosecuted according to the FBI’s recommendation issued today. The federal government has a law for everyone and everything – part of its scheme to maintain total control of the population, nothing more. People in charge of sensitive, classified information, like a Secretary of State, are expected to go above and beyond to maintain the integrity of the information entrusted to them.

Accordingly, the law places on such special people a higher standard of what is criminal misconduct. Congress eliminated the intent element regarding data transfers and breaches so that even incidents of negligence will qualify as offensive. In most circumstances a person accused of a crime must be proven to have intended to break a law or cause harm. They cannot or should not be charged if they did something accidental that resulted in a technical violation. In these special cases though the law is much more demanding. The information trustee is presumed to have the need and ability to protect the data even against foreseeable instances of negligence or even accidental unauthorized dissemination.

Hillary laughs at the weak and insignificant. Pinterest.

Today the FBI rewrote the law in order to avoid charging Hillary.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

• National Review.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is information that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” [FBI Director] Comey told reporters in Washington, D.C., noting that the probe has found that the former secretary of state used several different email servers and numerous devices during her time in office.

•  Politico.

The final say rests with the Department of Justice [SIC], parent of the FBI, which is under the control of Loretta Lynch (talk’n golf with President Clinton) and President Obama (Hillary’s boss and friend). Nothing will happen; case closed. On with the Democrat Party selection process and the general election. Even without criminal charges, do you want a President with a history of being “extremely careless” with classified information?

In any other investigation, right now an FBI agent would be applying before a judge for an arrest warrant. Anyone else would go to jail, go to trial, almost certainly be convicted of this crime, and probably do prison time. Well, anyone weak and insignificant would. Hillary is powerful, wealthy, special. Yesterday I put up a WSJ chart that shows (what I’ve talked about for years) that most people charged in federal court, who do not take a plea deal, end up convicted. And, almost all – the chart did not show this – almost all such persons enter into an agreement and plead guilty to something. Thus, those ensnared in federal prosecution (mostly for crimes the feds have no business prosecuting) are about 97-99% likely to be sentenced as guilty.

This is what we call a double standard. That’s what Anacharsis said to Solon 2,500+ years ago. It isn’t right. It isn’t justice. It is a clear sign that the real criminals are the agents of the state itself.