FBI Director James Comey has delivered us all from the harsh yoke of law and order. With the bureau’s decision that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against former Sec. of State Clinton or her staff for mismanagement of classified documents, the top man at the FBI set a new standard for criminal prosecution in the U.S.
"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 evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said in his July 5 press statement.
I present to you to what I’d like to call “The Urkel-Clinton Doctrine.”
The Urkel-Clinton Doctrine is based upon the apparently formidable defenses of both former U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and annoying 90’s sit-com character Steven Quincy Urkel of Family Matters. Successful prosecution must now overcome the two-pronged burden of proving knowledge of wrong-doing and intent to commit a crime.
In other words, “Did I do thaaaaaaat?” and “Well, I didn’t mean to.”
Look for the IRS and EPA to follow the bureau’s lead in the near future, yes?
This recommendation, or lack thereof, has to be one of the silliest sendups of the criminal justice system since People of the State of California vs Orenthal James Simpson… everyone involved is either corrupt, clueless, or dead.
Frankly, I didn’t think for a moment Clinton would be prosecuted, although I’ll admit the idea of Hillary in her orange jumpsuit and ankle monitor bracelet pulling maintenance duty in the Rose Garden was appealing to me.
But for the Director of the FBI to stand before the press and suggest that crime is based upon whether one can prove intent approaches rank stupidity. No drunk climbs behind the wheel of his car and intends to kill the family he plows into. Still, we prosecute it because the accused was “extremely careless,” and should be held accountable.
“Did I do thaaaaaaat?
“Well, I didn’t mean to.”
Clinton's supporters might say she's been cleared by the bureau and the whole matter should be left behind, but the bigger picture is about more than the e-mail server, alone.
When former president Bill Clinton, husband of the subject of one investigation and possible witness to a second criminal investigation into The Clinton Foundation, meets privately with the Attorney General, the head of the top law enforcement agency in the land… that smells.
When the FBI closes an investigation into the actions of a presidential candidate mere days before she is to be appointed the representative of her respective party – and declines to recommend charges because “she didn’t mean to do it,” well, that smells, too.
And when the State Department refuses to release e-mails regarding an investigation into The Clinton Foundation for 27 months – until long after the presidential election – that smells to high heaven.
Seems to me, we could justifiably look at our Federal government with a cocked eyebrow and say, “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do,” or better yet ask, “What right have you to judge me… on anything?”
At the very least, I believe we should be allowed to invoke The Urkel-Clinton Doctrine the next time we run a red light, run naked through a retirement home, dump 3000 gallons of toxic waste in the river, or cheat on our taxes.
Seems only fair. And don’t forget, it’s FBI-approved.
Draft Version - Urkel-Clinton Doctrine
No person shall be prosecuted for commission of a crime or action that results in a crime unless a reasonable prosecutor believes and can prove both - that
a) the accused knew his/her actions would result in the commission of a crime, and
b) the accused intended to commit that crime.