And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14)
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of allegiance to the Flag and the Republic of the United States of America. Colonel George Balch originally composed it in 1887, and Francis Bellamy later revised it in 1892. Congress formally adopted the Pledge in 1942, and the official name of “The Pledge of Allegiance” was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day, 1954 when the words “under God” were added.[1]
The closing phrase of “The Pledge of Allegiance” asserts that this republic, “under God,” offers “liberty and justice for all.” This week, following the celebration of the 240th anniversary of the birth of our nation, that assertion proved false when FBI Director, James Comey, succinctly detailed the numerous security violations incurred by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when she carelessly handed classified electronic documents. The recitation of infractions enumerated by the FBI director exposed the litany of lies voiced by the Democrat Presidential Candidate.
In her position as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, Clinton repeatedly and flagrantly violated the “Espionage Act” (18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)),[2] and then lied about having done so. She said her emails resided on a single server; there were four. She said she communicated on only one handheld device; there were several. She said she did not send or receive any communications “marked” classified. That was untrue, but even if not marked classified, in her position as Secretary of State, she should have recognized sensitive material when she saw it, so she has no excuse. She claims to have surrendered all emails to the FBI. That was false, and furthermore, Director Comey revealed that Clinton’s lawyers deleted large quantities of emails and then “scrubbed” their devices to render them insusceptible to forensic investigation.
With the mountains of evidence clearly stacked against her, FBI Director, James Comey declared that no “reasonable” prosecutor should find cause to bring charges against Hillary Clinton based on the premise that the evidence did not support “malicious intent.” The problem with Comey’s assessment is that the statute says nothing about “intent.” The fact is that Clinton dealt with highly sensitive material involving national security for which she was responsible, and she carelessly handled that material. The statute in question reads as follows:
Whoever [including the Secretary of State and even the President], being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (Emphasis mine.)
Mrs. Clinton, in her position as Secretary of State, had “lawful possession or control” of many sensitive documents relating to the “national defense.” Through “gross negligence,” she permitted those documents “to be removed from [their] proper place of custody,” i.e. secured government servers, “in violation of [her] trust.” Then attempted to obscure and obfuscate the fact, first of all, by storing them on a personal servers rather than on secure government servers, and secondly, by deleting (destroying) them from those servers. One should note that nothing in the statute addresses “intent.” In short, if a person is a lawful custodian of sensitive information related to national defense, that person is responsible and accountable for the security of that information.
Many in government have been severely punished for lesser offenses. When questioned by the Congressional investigative committee, Comey was asked if one of his FBI agents were to be charged with such offenses, what would happen to that agent. Comely admitted that such a violator would have his/her security clearance revoked and suffer such punishment as required by law. Yet, no “reasonable prosecutor” should bring any charges against Hillary Clinton.
With that FBI “recommendation,” Attorney General, Loretta Lynch exonerated Mrs. Clinton clearing the path for her presidency. Heaven help us!
In the classic novel, Animal Farm by George Orwell, one of the closing lines says, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Iustitia, the Roman goddess of justice (Lady Justice), is portrayed with a balance scale in one hand, a sword in the other, and a blindfold over her eyes. The image speaks of equality under the law. With her eyes covered, Lady Justice sees no race. She sees no rich or poor. She sees no ruler or subject. Her judgment is weighed on the scale of the law, and the guilty succumb to her sword regardless of status or stature. That is as it should be. That is as it once was in America, but it now seems that the law applies only to the masses and excuses some of a new elite class of rulers. These animals are more equal than others. Anarchy now rules in our land.
Before his death, King David said, “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” ( 2 Samuel 23:1-3, emphasis mine).
Notes:
[1] Wikipedia, “Pledge of Allegiance,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance/.
Ernie's Musings 