3 ms·

How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we

How is "there is evidence of legal violations" substantively different from "there is evidence that Clinton and/or subordinates may have broken the law?" Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Ah, good. So maybe she wouldn't be charged if she were a normal person. She'd just lose her job and her security clearance, which totally doesn't affect her candidacy for POTUS. Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/press-releases/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news... Regarding his plainly stating that they broke the law: "a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." ... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" Pretty direct, no?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Actual guilt is ascertained by a court. Whether there is strong enough evidence of guilt for it to be reasonable to expend resources in prosecution is ascertained by a prosecutor. Evidence of potential violations exists all the time without anyone being prosecuted. (Heck, without even meeting the "probable cause" standard -- for which "evidence of likely violations" would be a reasonable approximation -- for a prosecutor to secure an indictment or proceed beyond a preliminary hearing and actually compel a defendant to stand trial.) > Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: I don't think that's equivalent, either in terms of evidence (and thus, whether prosecution was viable) or the alleged offense (where there is no question of the intent to put classified information on an unapproved system.)
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Well I'm sure glad the American public can rely on some commentator's opinion on the Internet regarding equivalency. That inspires just as much confidence in my government and likely future president as, say, a court case would have. I'm sure poor kids get let off the hook all the time because cops consider that "there was evidence that maybe a crime occurred, not necessarily evidence of a crime!"

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Now we're back to whether actual guilt is ascertained by a prosecutor or by a court. Actual guilt is ascertained by a court. Whether there is strong enough evidence of guilt for it to be reasonable to expend resources in prosecution is ascertained by a prosecutor. Evidence of potential violations exists all the time without anyone being prosecuted. (Heck, without even meeting the "probable cause" standard -- for which "evidence of likely violations" would be a reasonable approximation -- for a prosecutor to secure an indictment or proceed beyond a preliminary hearing and actually compel a defendant to stand trial.) > Anyways, someone actually was charged and sentenced for equivalent actions: I don't think that's equivalent, either in terms of evidence (and thus, whether prosecution was viable) or the alleged offense (where there is no question of the intent to put classified information on an unapproved system.)

ethanbond 10y ago
Well I'm sure glad the American public can rely on some commentator's opinion on the Internet regarding equivalency. That inspires just as much confidence in my government and likely future president as, say, a court case would have. I'm sure poor kids get let off the hook all the time because cops consider that "there was evidence that maybe a crime occurred, not necessarily evidence of a crime!"