A press blackout on news top FBI lawyer James Baker wanted Hillary Clinton prosecuted

The news is out that then-FBI director James Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents during her stint as secretary of state, passing around some of the U.S. government's most secret documents on an illegal private account attached to a server in some guy's bathroom.

"No reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former secretary of state and then-presidential candidate off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey: none other than FBI general counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton's dishonest act merited prosecution.

According to Fox News's Catherine Herridge:

The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails' contents sent through her private server.  And he believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were "arguing about" whether to bring charges against Clinton, "I think, up until the end" — and he initially thought Clinton's behavior was "alarming" and "appalling."

Pursuant to the "statutes that we were considering at the time," Baker told lawmakers, it was "the nature and scope of the classified information that, to me, initially, when I looked at it, I thought these folks should know that this stuff is classified, that it was alarming what they were talking about, especially some of the most highly classified stuff.”

Fox News has confirmed portions of the congressional transcript of Baker's remarks.  Baker's testimony was considered credible by those in the room.

Up until now, Comey's "narrative" was that Clinton was "extremely careless" (not even "grossly negligent," which is actionable) and the book was closed on the matter, as Democrats brushed the whole thing off, while hackers and Russians and Chinese and terrorists got to dig into the goodies.

Clinton was supposed to be charged with mishandling classified documents, and she wasn't. 

Only three news sources are reporting this bombshell (I checked Google News, Yahoo! News, and DuckDuckGo): John Solomon of The Hill, Catherine Herridge of Fox News, and Sara Carter, all respectable heavyweights in investigative reporting, and their reports should easily merit news pickups.  But the nets are nowhere, the New York Times doesn't think such a revision to its "narrative" is fit to print, and the Washington Post is going to let that one die in darkness.

Shouldn't a story about favoritism be newsworthy?

The implication now is that laws are for little guys, like that Navy sailor who was prosecuted for carelessly taking a "hi, Mom"–type photo onboard a classified ship, but not for Madame Big.  One wonders why we have these laws on the books at all anymore with such stunning double standards.  Secrets aren't secrets if Hillary Clinton is running things.  And the FBI's Comey was clearly rooting (alongside his sidekick, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) for a Hillary victory in 2016, something he was stunned didn't happen after he put his thumb on the scale for her.

And now the whole decision is being exposed as a blatant double standard in law enforcement, except that the press has gone AWOL.  It was just that funny-strange craziness in Comey's decision that might have gotten voters to elect Donald Trump president, rather than the Left's claim that Clinton's shadow of prosecution did her in.  The new report about Baker's testimony blows that "narrative" to smithereens.

Somehow, that's not news.  Perhaps that's because a "narrative" has been set, and the press is all in for following it.  That staff revolt you hear about over at CNN regarding the hiring of a former Trump staffer certainly would support it. 

The press's job is not that hard.  The nets don't have to even go digging when there are people like Solomon, Herridge, and Carter doing it for them.  They just need to tell the truth, wherever that may lead.  They aren't doing it.  They'd rather the whole problem just go away, and by their ignoring this gargantuan shift to their already set narrative, they're derelict of duty.

Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.

The news is out that then-FBI director James Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents during her stint as secretary of state, passing around some of the U.S. government's most secret documents on an illegal private account attached to a server in some guy's bathroom.

"No reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former secretary of state and then-presidential candidate off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey: none other than FBI general counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton's dishonest act merited prosecution.

According to Fox News's Catherine Herridge:

The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails' contents sent through her private server.  And he believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were "arguing about" whether to bring charges against Clinton, "I think, up until the end" — and he initially thought Clinton's behavior was "alarming" and "appalling."

Pursuant to the "statutes that we were considering at the time," Baker told lawmakers, it was "the nature and scope of the classified information that, to me, initially, when I looked at it, I thought these folks should know that this stuff is classified, that it was alarming what they were talking about, especially some of the most highly classified stuff.”

Fox News has confirmed portions of the congressional transcript of Baker's remarks.  Baker's testimony was considered credible by those in the room.

Up until now, Comey's "narrative" was that Clinton was "extremely careless" (not even "grossly negligent," which is actionable) and the book was closed on the matter, as Democrats brushed the whole thing off, while hackers and Russians and Chinese and terrorists got to dig into the goodies.

Clinton was supposed to be charged with mishandling classified documents, and she wasn't. 

Only three news sources are reporting this bombshell (I checked Google News, Yahoo! News, and DuckDuckGo): John Solomon of The Hill, Catherine Herridge of Fox News, and Sara Carter, all respectable heavyweights in investigative reporting, and their reports should easily merit news pickups.  But the nets are nowhere, the New York Times doesn't think such a revision to its "narrative" is fit to print, and the Washington Post is going to let that one die in darkness.

Shouldn't a story about favoritism be newsworthy?

The implication now is that laws are for little guys, like that Navy sailor who was prosecuted for carelessly taking a "hi, Mom"–type photo onboard a classified ship, but not for Madame Big.  One wonders why we have these laws on the books at all anymore with such stunning double standards.  Secrets aren't secrets if Hillary Clinton is running things.  And the FBI's Comey was clearly rooting (alongside his sidekick, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) for a Hillary victory in 2016, something he was stunned didn't happen after he put his thumb on the scale for her.

And now the whole decision is being exposed as a blatant double standard in law enforcement, except that the press has gone AWOL.  It was just that funny-strange craziness in Comey's decision that might have gotten voters to elect Donald Trump president, rather than the Left's claim that Clinton's shadow of prosecution did her in.  The new report about Baker's testimony blows that "narrative" to smithereens.

Somehow, that's not news.  Perhaps that's because a "narrative" has been set, and the press is all in for following it.  That staff revolt you hear about over at CNN regarding the hiring of a former Trump staffer certainly would support it. 

The press's job is not that hard.  The nets don't have to even go digging when there are people like Solomon, Herridge, and Carter doing it for them.  They just need to tell the truth, wherever that may lead.  They aren't doing it.  They'd rather the whole problem just go away, and by their ignoring this gargantuan shift to their already set narrative, they're derelict of duty.

Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.