3 ms·
I understand the sentiment, I just don't understand the facts. People keep saying "if anyone but Clinton did this they'd be in prison", but there's a bunch of p
by kaitai 10y ago
I understand the sentiment, I just don't understand the facts. People keep saying "if anyone but Clinton did this they'd be in prison", but there's a bunch of people who used private servers and had email reclassified and they're not in prison. Karl Rove used RNC servers, although it sounds like the email was all archived with the White House; that doesn't seem to address the initial security concerns though.
Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton). I'm a mathematician. I'm stuck. So is it about being well-connected, as MrZongle2's most proximate comment says, or is it about being Clinton?
- MrZongle2 10y ago"Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton)." IMO, if others broke the law, they should be in prison as well. The fact that they aren't and the fact that many people want to laugh this issue away as being trivial, is appalling. There are very clear regulations covering the handling and dissemination of classified information. Removing the "SECRET" header doesn't make them less secret; in fact, exactly who can declassify classified information is covered pretty thoroughly in regulations as well. The ambiguity is not the law itself, it is in the enforcement. That a candidate for the top elected position in a branch tasked with enforcement of the law is under investigation should be a huge concern.