Clinton’s awful judgment wasn’t criminal

Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, displayed incredibly poor judgment in routing sensitive government emails through a server at her home office. But she did not break the law.

That was the conclusion of FBI Director James Comey – a Republican appointed to his post by a Democratic president. His report was measured, direct and complete, calling her “extremely careless.” But he concluded by recommending that no criminal charges be pursued.

Comey’s recommendation is right. What Clinton did was irresponsible, but it was not criminal. It was not treasonous. It was not malicious or done to enrich either herself or her foundation.

We agree with Comey’s analysis. Clinton displayed boneheaded judgment: She knew the need for security and the risks attendant in leaving the secretary of state’s email vulnerable to hacking. Still, a lapse in judgment is fixable.

It’s up to voters to weigh that against her experience, character and policy positions in deciding whether she should be our next president. Polarized though they are, Americans have to trust some set of facts in criminal cases. Whose facts do you trust? Those of the FBI or those of a businessman with no access to any real information?

Comey’s summary of the investigation’s findings was unusually detailed, making it clear no stone had been left unturned. He said 110 emails containing classified information were sent or received on her server. He said several thousand work-related emails were not among the group of 30,000 emails that Clinton turned over in 2014, though they were not intentionally hidden. And he said it’s possible that hostile nations or entities gained access to her account.

But Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case.

Clinton has repeatedly said that no email was marked classified at the time she sent or received it, and that other secretaries of state also used private servers. A State Department audit concluded she feared that her personal messages would be accessible if she used a government email server.

However much her critics wish the law were different, that’s that. Yes, Clinton should have known better, and her inner circle should have saved her from this blunder. But they didn’t.

Predictably, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump heckle-tweeted almost immediately, complaining that a “rigged system” was protecting “crooked” Hillary.

If Trump has any actual evidence to back that claim, he should produce it. Comey has a well-deserved reputation as a straight shooter. When he says “no outside influence of any kind was brought to bear” on the investigation, we believe him.

The timing of Comey’s announcement took the luster off what was supposed to be a big day for the Clinton campaign – her first joint campaign appearance with President Barack Obama. But it does clear the air before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in three weeks.

These lapses in judgment by the Clintons feed the narrative – fair or not – that they learned nothing from Bill Clinton’s drama-stained tenure, and that they believe they can play by different rules than the rest of us. To show that’s not true, Hillary Clinton would do well to talk to the American people honestly about what she has learned and how she must and will do better.

This story was originally published July 6, 2016 at 11:34 AM with the headline "Clinton’s awful judgment wasn’t criminal."