9 ms·

If Watergate happened now (the parts of it that are public), I think the majority of Americans would not be upset. I think the president could literally say "wh

by baddox 11y ago

If Watergate happened now (the parts of it that are public), I think the majority of Americans would not be upset. I think the president could literally say "when the president does it, it's not illegal" and the majority of Americans (okay, maybe only the majority of Americans of the same party as the president) wouldn't bat an eye.

e40 11y ago
Breaking and entering would be viewed as "okay" by the majority of Americans? I seriously doubt that would be the case. The reason: it's something that normal people are put into jail for. Now, going to war on false pretenses? They get away with that, for sure, because it's not something in the experience of anyone but a POTUS. People can't relate. B&E people relate.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  It's called a "sneak and peek" warrant. TheY are used all of the time, including federal misdemeanors. (Say inappropriate use of a "Smokey the Bear" picture) I'm sure that the president would never push for an investigation based on politics...
- baddox 11y ago
  Well, I'm sure everyone would approve of prosecuting the people who actually broke into the building. I just don't think the politicians ordering or supporting the break-in would find much resistance.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  People here are currently ok with summarily executing suspected foreign persons and innocent civilians with remote controlled airplanes that launch "hellfire" missiles... What exactly do you mean by your question?
- themartorana 11y ago
  I disagree with this. See: The War on Drugs. "Justice" is so often meted out unequally based on class and race, and that's between different members of "normal" people. People of Clinton's position are so far removed from "normal" that it's hard to imagine justice being applied at all (also see: bankers, Paulsen.)
BrandonMarc 11y ago
Case in point: Hillary. The emails, the servers, it's all proven, but thanks to some voodoo along with a splash of "Well, she may be a crook but she's OUR crook" and she's a viable candidate.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  What specifically about the emails should disqualify her in your opinion? That is to say, what law did she break?
  - lbaskin 11y ago
    At the very least, Title 18, Section 1924 of the U.S. Code: "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-intelligence-agencies-ask-for-criminal-investigation-in-the-clinton-email-scandal/ http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-in... Other possible violations here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clinton-emails-transparency-column/70280434/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clin...
    - antimagic 11y ago
      And who does the authorizing? Because if it isn't the Secretary of State, it's going to be the President, and he is not going to stick a dagger in Clinton's back at this point, not after her being a most loyal and effective lieutenant.
      - lbaskin 11y ago
        The statute may seem like it's drafted that way, but it's not up to her (or her boss, i.e., the Pres) discretion. There are rules and regulations that determine what is and is not authorized "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material." See, for example, Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintonemail-com-down-hillary-clinton-legally-untouched/ http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintone...).

by baddox 11y ago

e40 11y ago

Breaking and entering would be viewed as "okay" by the majority of Americans? I seriously doubt that would be the case. The reason: it's something that normal people are put into jail for. Now, going to war on false pretenses? They get away with that, for sure, because it's not something in the experience of anyone but a POTUS. People can't relate. B&E people relate.

Spooky23 11y ago
It's called a "sneak and peek" warrant. TheY are used all of the time, including federal misdemeanors. (Say inappropriate use of a "Smokey the Bear" picture) I'm sure that the president would never push for an investigation based on politics...
baddox 11y ago
Well, I'm sure everyone would approve of prosecuting the people who actually broke into the building. I just don't think the politicians ordering or supporting the break-in would find much resistance.
mangeletti 11y ago
People here are currently ok with summarily executing suspected foreign persons and innocent civilians with remote controlled airplanes that launch "hellfire" missiles... What exactly do you mean by your question?
themartorana 11y ago
I disagree with this. See: The War on Drugs. "Justice" is so often meted out unequally based on class and race, and that's between different members of "normal" people. People of Clinton's position are so far removed from "normal" that it's hard to imagine justice being applied at all (also see: bankers, Paulsen.)

BrandonMarc 11y ago

Case in point: Hillary. The emails, the servers, it's all proven, but thanks to some voodoo along with a splash of "Well, she may be a crook but she's OUR crook" and she's a viable candidate.

hackinthebochs 11y ago
What specifically about the emails should disqualify her in your opinion? That is to say, what law did she break?
- lbaskin 11y ago
  At the very least, Title 18, Section 1924 of the U.S. Code: "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-intelligence-agencies-ask-for-criminal-investigation-in-the-clinton-email-scandal/ http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-in... Other possible violations here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clinton-emails-transparency-column/70280434/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clin...
  - antimagic 11y ago
    And who does the authorizing? Because if it isn't the Secretary of State, it's going to be the President, and he is not going to stick a dagger in Clinton's back at this point, not after her being a most loyal and effective lieutenant.
    - lbaskin 11y ago
      The statute may seem like it's drafted that way, but it's not up to her (or her boss, i.e., the Pres) discretion. There are rules and regulations that determine what is and is not authorized "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material." See, for example, Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintonemail-com-down-hillary-clinton-legally-untouched/ http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintone...).