4 ms·

It certainly wasn't a very smart thing to do. But I think the main point of the article was "different rules for them than for us."

x0x0 10y ago
Yes, but the article is deceptive. The sailor: 1 - took photos of classified materiel; 2 - admitted he knew that they were classified and that he wasn't authorized to possess them; 3 - after being confronted by law enforcement, destroyed evidence Clinton 1 - at worst only accidentally had classified material; 2 - the state department disagrees with the cia/nsa over whether the 110 documents that were unmarked yet classified at the time of sending/receipt should have been so classified; 3 - did not destroy evidence. A far better comparison is General Petraeus. He [1] * was a 4-star general; * knowingly gave classified information to someone not authorized to possess it; * lied to the fbi (a felony all on its own, even if what you lied about wasn't a crime! Never ever talk to the fbi without your lawyer. For any reason.) * committed adultery Petraeus got probation, a $100k fine, and to keep his rank (which controls retirement benefits.) The differences, as the fbi director pointed out when discussing Clinton, revolve around knowingly taking classified material and lying/destroying evidence. One has to conclude the lawyer used Clinton to be sensational rather than as a genuine comparison. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
- the_trapper 10y ago
  > 3 - did not destroy evidence. Like with a cloth? Let me correct that for you, Clinton attempted to destroy evidence but was incompetent at it.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    She was not under investigation at the time, and none of the emails she deleted ended up being responsive. It's in no way the same as destroying documents or digital storage after the police/fbi talk to you. Even according to Comey, there is no evidence the emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information [1]. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/...
    - the_trapper 10y ago
      Let's be honest with ourselves here. Director Comey isn't exactly impartial here. His boss (President Obama) has a vested interest in a positive outcome for Hillary, and therefore, so does he. For the record, I'm not saying that he did anything improper regarding this investigation, I'm just saying that he is hardly a neutral third party in this.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        Feel free to revisit Comey's interactions with George Bush re: nsa wiretapping to see if Obama could intimidate him. If he said Obama didn't interfere, we should take him at his word.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Your point stands regardless, but who cares if he committed adultery? It's completely irrelevant to the question at hand and not illegal.
  - the_trapper 10y ago
    Actually, the case of GEN Petraeus legally falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ, adultery is a violation of Article 134. "There are three distinct elements to the crime of adultery under the UCMJ: first, a Soldier must have had sexual intercourse with someone; second, the Soldier or their sexual partner was married to someone else at the time; and third, that under the circumstances, the conduct of the Soldier was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." https://www.army.mil/article/61709/Legal_separation__adultery_and_the_UCMJ https://www.army.mil/article/61709/Legal_separation__adulter... GEN Petraeus easily ticked all three of those boxes, and is therefore guilty of violating Article 134, which is a punitive article.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Which, however, is completely irrelevant to the other charges against him.
      - the_trapper 10y ago
        I can assure you that it played a role in his sentencing and is being brought up because adultery also plays a major role in obtaining and keeping a security clearance. It is grounds for being stripped of your security clearance as it provides a means for the enemy to blackmail you and coerce you into giving up classified information. Adultery is hardly irrelevant to those dealing with classified information.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        No, it's in addition to the other charges. Which means the fine, etc, where the net punishment for not just the classified document violations but also this as well. Which shows how minimal the punishment really was.

x0x0 10y ago

Yes, but the article is deceptive. The sailor: 1 - took photos of classified materiel; 2 - admitted he knew that they were classified and that he wasn't authorized to possess them; 3 - after being confronted by law enforcement, destroyed evidence Clinton 1 - at worst only accidentally had classified material; 2 - the state department disagrees with the cia/nsa over whether the 110 documents that were unmarked yet classified at the time of sending/receipt should have been so classified; 3 - did not destroy evidence. A far better comparison is General Petraeus. He [1] * was a 4-star general; * knowingly gave classified information to someone not authorized to possess it; * lied to the fbi (a felony all on its own, even if what you lied about wasn't a crime! Never ever talk to the fbi without your lawyer. For any reason.) * committed adultery Petraeus got probation, a $100k fine, and to keep his rank (which controls retirement benefits.) The differences, as the fbi director pointed out when discussing Clinton, revolve around knowingly taking classified material and lying/destroying evidence. One has to conclude the lawyer used Clinton to be sensational rather than as a genuine comparison. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...

the_trapper 10y ago
> 3 - did not destroy evidence. Like with a cloth? Let me correct that for you, Clinton attempted to destroy evidence but was incompetent at it.
- x0x0 10y ago
  She was not under investigation at the time, and none of the emails she deleted ended up being responsive. It's in no way the same as destroying documents or digital storage after the police/fbi talk to you. Even according to Comey, there is no evidence the emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information [1]. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/...
  - the_trapper 10y ago
    Let's be honest with ourselves here. Director Comey isn't exactly impartial here. His boss (President Obama) has a vested interest in a positive outcome for Hillary, and therefore, so does he. For the record, I'm not saying that he did anything improper regarding this investigation, I'm just saying that he is hardly a neutral third party in this.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      Feel free to revisit Comey's interactions with George Bush re: nsa wiretapping to see if Obama could intimidate him. If he said Obama didn't interfere, we should take him at his word.
x1798DE 10y ago
Your point stands regardless, but who cares if he committed adultery? It's completely irrelevant to the question at hand and not illegal.
- the_trapper 10y ago
  Actually, the case of GEN Petraeus legally falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ, adultery is a violation of Article 134. "There are three distinct elements to the crime of adultery under the UCMJ: first, a Soldier must have had sexual intercourse with someone; second, the Soldier or their sexual partner was married to someone else at the time; and third, that under the circumstances, the conduct of the Soldier was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." https://www.army.mil/article/61709/Legal_separation__adultery_and_the_UCMJ https://www.army.mil/article/61709/Legal_separation__adulter... GEN Petraeus easily ticked all three of those boxes, and is therefore guilty of violating Article 134, which is a punitive article.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Which, however, is completely irrelevant to the other charges against him.
    - the_trapper 10y ago
      I can assure you that it played a role in his sentencing and is being brought up because adultery also plays a major role in obtaining and keeping a security clearance. It is grounds for being stripped of your security clearance as it provides a means for the enemy to blackmail you and coerce you into giving up classified information. Adultery is hardly irrelevant to those dealing with classified information.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      No, it's in addition to the other charges. Which means the fine, etc, where the net punishment for not just the classified document violations but also this as well. Which shows how minimal the punishment really was.