I Asked A Professional Businessman Their Opinion On Yesterday's FBI's Finding Over Hillary Clinton's E-Mail

Here are my thoughts, working deductively from some basic premises (which should be undisputed) to some more opinionated content at the end. Obviously the final thoughts below are only one person’s (my own) opinion. But much like showing my work in a math problem, I wanted to deduct my way to reach my opinionated conclusions.

1) Historically, the F.B.I. is intended to be a politically neutral agency.

2) The original purpose, in this case, was to perform a political neutral review of Ms. Clinton and Staff’s private emails, to determine if there were any known, intentional security breaches.

3) History has revealed, at least throughout the last century, that the F.B.I. has been less than politically neutral—see J. Edgar Hoover, just to get start. It is very difficult to know these motives, if any, contemporaneously. The agency is secretive by design.

4) Regardless, the F.B.I. does not have authority to indict a person, including Ms. Clinton. This authority is held by the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency.

5) The F.B.I. can, however, recommend criminal charges be filed. It cannot independently prosecute, despite its status a federal agency. Much, by analogy, like a local police department can file charges, make arrests, or recommend prosecution, but these must then be prosecuted by the State’s Attorney.

6) The F.B.I., after much deliberation, described Clinton’s handling of emails as “extremely careless.”

7) There is an important legal distinction between “extreme carelessness” and “intentional.” By comparison, think of “extreme carelessness” as manslaughter, whereas “intentional” would be murder. Manslaughter would be like a drunken driver killing an innocent pedestrian. Murder would be like knowingly pulling the trigger and shooting someone, without provocation.

8) The comments made by F.B.I. Director Comey fall just short of the “intentional” standard that most legal experts would be necessary to prove a criminal case. There is no “manslaughter” equivalent in Ms. Clinton’s case—no such charges exist. It would be what is known as a “specific intent” crime, meaning the conduct must have been done intentionally and purposefully, as opposed to carelessly, or even recklessly.

9) We do not know what the F.B.I. may be withholding. Its investigation may have been completely neutral, thorough and forthcoming. It may be withholding certain facts and evidence. This concern is not unique to this case; but any case with any agency. The public may not know the facts, but then again, the F.B.I. may have been completely forthcoming. This question will likely remain unanswered.

10) In my personal opinion, this is a matter that should reach the judge, jury and executor of public opinion, rather than the judicial system. Obviously, this is just one person’s opinion, based on an admittedly limited knowledge of the specifics of the F.B.I.’s findings.

11) There is no reasonable dispute that the F.B.I.’s findings have done damage, and called into question, Ms. Clinton’s credibility. At minimum, the findings are inconsistent with statements she has made publicly and repeatedly about her use or misuse of private emails.