Opinion Outpost July 8


FBI report on Clinton’s email

After an exhaustive, full-year investigation, the FBI concluded what we suspected from the start: Clinton showed a considerable lack of judgment and, in the process, she skirted up against the laws governing the treatment of classified information. But in the end, she did not behave in a manner that merited criminal prosecution. As Comey put it — persuasively — “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring criminal charges in this case.

Even if the Justice Department follows Comey’s advice, Clinton’s private email server will be an issue in the presidential campaign. That is the price Clinton must pay … for a thoughtless decision that violated the spirit if not the letter of the law and needlessly compromised the confidentiality of sensitive communications.

— Editorial Board

Los Angeles Times        


When the controversy over her private email server began, Clinton issued broad and unequivocal assertions that the emails contained on her private server contained no classified information. While the release of information and emails had slowly whittled away at this defense, (the) statement from FBI director (James Comey) destroyed its remaining vestiges.

In all, 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have included classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Among these, eight chains of email contained “Top Secret” information, a classification the law limits to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”

— Douglas Cox



For at least two reasons, Mr. Comey said, (Mrs. Clinton’s emails) did not amount to criminal wrongdoing. First was the lack of evidence that Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intended to break any laws. Second, prosecutions of similar cases in the past have relied on some combination of elements that were missing in this case: the intentional mishandling of classified information, indications of disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct justice.

If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment.

— Editorial Board

The New York Times


The FBI investigated thoroughly. It came to its conclusion in time for voters to factor it into their deliberations.

From what’s come to light, it seems clear Ms. Clinton and her aides used the private email server to preserve control over her messages, neglecting their responsibility as public servants to follow procedures for protecting classified information. Rather than toss off this experience with a back of the hand, Ms. Clinton needs to learn from it and find a way to show voters that she has better judgment than the combination of high-handedness and defensiveness she has displayed here.

— Editorial Board

The Washington Post


On (July 5), Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was shot by police responding to a 911 call alleging that a man matching Sterling’s description had threatened the caller with a gun outside a convenience store.

The next evening, Philando Castile … who has a permit to carry, according to his family, was shot four to five times after he informed an officer during the traffic stop he was legally armed.

Any sane person would assume that groups like the National Rifle Association would jump into action, condemning police for infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms that was apparently violated in both cases.

It still feels like it is illegal to be black in America, let alone try to carry a gun in a gun-happy nation.

— Zach Stafford

The Guardian


Videos of two fatal shootings of African-American men have again documented what appear to be almost casual killing by the police. They prompt the deepest shock at what the nation has witnessed over and over again: a chance encounter with the police and an innocent black life ended.

On (July 7), a peaceful march in Dallas against the shootings ended in violence when snipers on rooftops killed five officers and wounded seven others. One suspect, who was killed in a stand-off with police, said he wanted to kill whites, according to the Dallas police chief. This horrendous attack on the police and the two killings this week demand sober reflection by the nation’s political and law enforcement leadership.

— Editorial Board

The New York Times


And as much as this nation has changed, we find ourselves again dealing with tensions that pit law enforcement against the public, and disproportionately against communities of color.

With a lack of national standards among our nation’s estimated 17,000 police agencies, individual officer and organizational competencies range from outstanding to notoriously bad. There is far too much variation and lack of agreement on what constitutes “good” policing.

Change cannot begin unless police chiefs will it. When chiefs do not lead in our nation’s values and instead defend the status quo and bad conduct by their officers, they are not doing their job.

— David C. Couper

USA Today


Print Friendly, PDF & Email