I remember hearing rumors months ago that if the FBI decided not to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton, there would be high level resignations at the bureau in response.

So far, that hasn’t happened but some people at the FBI were clearly as stunned as the rest of the nation.

Sharyl Attkisson reports:

FBI Pros Question Decision Not to Charge Hillary Clinton

This week, FBI Director James Comey testified that Hillary Clinton and her aides had compromised classified information in an extremely careless fashion, exposed it to hostile adversaries, violated public records law, destroyed public documents (some permanently, so that they cannot be forensically recovered) and that Clinton made repeated false statements in public about her actions. But, he concluded, no charges should be filed. Clinton apparently told the FBI she didn’t understand classified markings and all the technology at issue, and that she didn’t know she was doing anything wrong. And the FBI takes her at her word.

Comey is well-respected by politicians in both political parties and by many within his own ranks. But there is new dissent after his Clinton decision, which some FBI insiders found baffling and contrary to normal practices.

Attkisson provides examples from people who have to remain anonymous:

  • Why wasn’t Clinton’s interview recorded? On May 22, 2014 the Justice Department announced a substantial change in policy “creating a presumption that FBI…agents will electronically record,” expressing a preference for video recordings over audio. “It appears to me they made a deal not to record,” says one observer, which flies in the face of the idea that Clinton was treated like anybody else.
  • Typically it’s the U.S. Attorney’s office, not FBI agents, deciding whether charges will be filed. “Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview–he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”
  • The Director commented that it wouldn’t be fair to charge Clinton for her reckless behavior because no one else had ever been charged by the standard before. “I am not aware of any investigation where a government official went to such extreme measures to comb through the government records,” said a career FBI professional.

In another post on her site, Attkisson points out that this is bigger than Hillary Clinton:

It’s Not All About Hillary

In some respects, the implications of the FBI’s findings aren’t about Hillary– they’re about the rest of us. As a layman, here’s my interpretation:

Any federal employee is now free, despite what the law may say, to make personal arrangements to communicate the public’s business using private servers, administrators, accounts and devices. They may send and receive classified material using these servers, even in hostile territory subject to hacking by sophisticated adversaries. They may routinely destroy the public-owned records they create–some of them permanently–and, if their actions are discovered, they may provide false public statements about their content.

They are free to violate public records law and fail to turn over public records upon request (making Freedom of Information law meaningless and toothless). And prosecutors will view questionable acts in the most innocent light and one that’s the most favorable to the subject of the investigation. Unless they can find what they term “clear evidence” of “intent to violate laws,” you’re off the hook!

Comey’s decision represents a total failure of justice.

Just wait until lawyers start citing this case a defense.