Fmr Supervisory Federal Prosecutor: Clinton’s FBI Interview Was ‘Quick,’ ‘No Question’ Comey Had Evidence To Prosecute, Intent and Precedent Aren’t Needed

On Tuesday’s broadcast of “CNN Tonight,” Marc Mukasey, who served as a federal supervisory federal prosecutor under FBI Director James Comey, strongly praised the integrity of Comey, but expressed surprise that charges were not brought against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton given that “there’s no question he had the evidence to prosecute” and argued, “Jim’s words, the fact that she exercised extreme carelessness, squares exactly with the gross negligence standard,” and the lack of precedent, or intent would not prevent bringing charges against Clinton. Mukasey explained that the interview of Clinton was “a quick interview.” And that he believes “Jim probably had a sense that this case was not winnable at trial. I don’t really understand why.”

Mukasey began by saying that Comey is “not afraid to pull the trigger.” After elaborating on this point, he stated, “Now, with respect to the Hillary Clinton case, a three-and-a-half-hour interview, on a Saturday, in a case involving tens of thousands of documents, that’s a quick interview. I think Jim Comey’s integrity is unquestionable, and he’s uncorruptible. A three-and-a half-hour interview in a case like this, is rocket fast. I’ve had cases way less important than this where people have been interviewed for hours, days, weeks.”

He added, “I think Jim probably had a sense that this case was not winnable at trial. I don’t really understand why. It’s hard to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the sky is blue, alright?” And “Having the evidence to prosecute is difficult than having the evidence to convict. And in this case, there’s no question he had the evidence to prosecute, right? The definition of gross negligence is an extreme departure from the standard of care. Jim said today that she was extremely careless.”

Mukasey later said, “Comey said that any reasonable person would have known that the content of these emails should not have been passed along on a private server. That leads to only one of two conclusions, Hillary Clinton is not a reasonable person who understood that, maybe she’s not a reasonable person because she thinks she’s above the law and she never understood that this can’t be put on a private server, because she thinks, I can put anything on a private server because I’m Hillary Clinton, or there was no evidence that she understood that, and either way, she’s a loser.”

In the second segment, Mukasey stated that “charges could have been brought.” And that he was surprised that they weren’t. He continued, “I think based on Jim’s words, the fact that she exercised extreme carelessness, squares exactly with the gross negligence standard, and the fact that there’s no precedent for this, this is not like a judge who needs to follow precedent of his appellate courts. If you have the proof, if you have the law, and you have the facts, you can bring a case, even though no one’s ever done the exact same thing before.”

He added, “This is not an intent crime according to the gross intelligence standard.”

Mukasey also said that he doesn’t think Comey’s decision was political, and agrees with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus “that the case Jim made out today in his statement could have been prosecuted as a gross negligence violation. Sometimes, the hardest decisions for prosecutors are the cases not to bring, and only Jim knows. He’s not a scared guy, and he’s not a kowtowing guy. He must have some reason why he thinks that it wasn’t a winnable case.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.