![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/APP-022119-Comey-c.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: Do you remember when James Comey…? It was on July 5th of 2016. He has this press conference out there, and he lists all of the crimes Hillary Clinton has committed regarding the email server and trafficking in classified documents and data, and then he says that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever seek charges. (summarized) “No reasonable prosecutor” would ever proceed here with charges, because they couldn\u2019t find any “intent” on the part of the Mrs. Clinton to actually violate the law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Well, two things. A, the law does not require intent. You\u2019re not exonerated from robbing the bank if you didn\u2019t intend to. You might think that sounds odd. But why does she have an illegal server? She\u2019s wanting to evade a government email address. She wants to be able to run her pay-for-play scheme for the Clinton Foundation outside of government scrutiny. By definition, she\u2019s engaging in intent!<\/p>\n
“Well, Judge, I didn\u2019t mean to rob the bank. I — I — I don\u2019t know how you could prosecute me for this.”<\/p>\n
(Hillary impression) “I — I — I didn\u2019t mean to have an illegal server. It just happened.”<\/p>\n
So, A, that doesn\u2019t apply. B, “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute? Well, it turns out that a reasonable prosecutor in the FBI did want to prosecute her and had to be talked out of it by McCabe and Comey. “Former FBI general counsel James Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were ‘arguing about\u2019 whether to bring charges against [Hillary], ‘I think, up until the end\u2019 — and he initially thought Clinton\u2019s behavior was ‘alarming\u2019 and ‘appalling.'”<\/p>\n
By the way, do you know how long we\u2019ve known this? You know when James Baker said this? He said this in closed-door congressional testimony years ago. The Republicans never leaked the transcript. The Republicans in the committee never leaked it. The Democrats were never gonna leak this, but the Republicans didn\u2019t leak it. This was not a hearing that you get to see on TV where every congressman gets five minutes and they ramrod through. This was a closed-door, open-ended, no-time-limits (well, certainly no five-minute time limits) hearing, and this has been known.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/APP-022119-Baker.jpg\")
It\u2019s only recently been discovered!<\/p>\n
But the FBI general counsel months and months ago said that he thought Hillary Clinton\u2019s actions were “alarming” and “appalling.” “Pursuant to the ‘statutes that we were considering at the time,\u2019 Baker told lawmakers,” under oath, “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,'” and she\u2019s trafficking in it unprotected!<\/p>\n
He then said, “Well, I know there\u2019s been a lot of public discussion about that,” referring to Comey\u2019s memos. “I believe if I had been persuaded that she had the intent, I would have argued that vociferously with him (Comey) and maybe changed his view.” Anyway, he wanted to prosecute her, and then he was hit with the “no intent” aspect. (impression) “Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. No intent? Okay. I agree. We\u2019re not gonna prosecute.”<\/p>\n
It\u2019s such a bogus… (sigh) This intent business, it\u2019s not even part of this law. He said, “My original belief \u2014 well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn\u2019t be charged. I was struggling with the facts about even just ascertaining what literally did she know and what was reasonable to infer about what she knew.”<\/p>\n