For Any ‘Reasonable’ Prosecutor, Damage to National Security Would Outweigh ‘Extremely Careless’ Hillary’s (Largely Irrelevant) Intent

greenvilleonline

Andy McCarthy   "After masterfully marshaling facts that showed Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent in mishandling the nation’s defense secrets – i.e., after demonstrating that she was patently indictable for a felony violation of federal law – Federal Bureau of Investigation. Director James Comey recommended against prosecution. His rationale is even more difficult to justify on close examination than it appeared at first blush.

"Director Comey contends that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case due to the former Secretary of State’s purportedly benign intent. In point of fact, her intent – besides being very far from benign – is largely irrelevant: the criminal statute at issue, Section 793(f) of the federal penal code, merely requires proof that the defendant was grossly negligent – or, as Comey put it, “extremely careless.”

. . .
"Bottom line: Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution would be entirely consistent with Congress’s aim to protect national security by criminalizing grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. And it certainly appears that Mrs. Clinton’s actions were profoundly damaging. To a reasonable prosecutor, that would matter. A lot."