4 ms·

Agreed. There is very clearly a double standard for Clinton vs Everyone else in the Govt/Military. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached)

Agreed. There is very clearly a double standard for Clinton vs Everyone else in the Govt/Military. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached). Her lies weren't to the public, they were to the Justice Department - not knowing that the red "C" stood for classified. Furthermore, her concealment and destruction of her emails were federal crimes (plural). Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority. See: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 Whether it's her use of elaborate mechanisms to circumvent federal law, lying underoath or the astounding acceptance of foreign donations for a charity that directly supports her family (uhh, bribe?), I don't understand why her actions are excused away by otherwise rational people. See: State Dept. official accused of offering 'quid pro quo' in Clinton email scandal http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880#ixzz4NNnRa2r6 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-c...

dimino 10y ago
Except for the critical fact that she was never found to have violated any law, everyone involved says this. Anyone else having done what she did would have lacked the authority to do so, whereas she did have such authority. There is no comparable situation. The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. She was different, insofar that her boss wasn't a member of the State Department, he was the head of the executive branch. Additionally, quoting legal code is pretty ignorant; it's ignoring the huge impact case law has on the US justice system. Finally, she didn't lie under oath, in the sense of a legal "lie". The word doesn't mean the same in colloquial speak as it does in terms of a legal definition.
- theduckling 10y ago
  Attorney here. Citing federal criminal code, not irrelevant.
  - dimino 10y ago
    I didn't say it was irrelevant, I used the word "ignorant". We can substitute the word with "maliciously manipulative" or "intellectually dishonest" if you'd prefer.
    - theduckling 10y ago
      Oh "intellectually dishonest." As opposed to knowingly and willingly making false statements to the Justice Department or before Congress.
      - dimino 10y ago
        What's that got to do with quoting statute without case law contextualization? Oh right, nothing, but you wanted to get your jab in anyway.
        theduckling 10y ago
        >The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. Not trying to be rude, but you are confusing several different issues. This is not an issue of federal criminal code applying to an inferior officer (someone not appointed by the President) vs Officer. It's absolute and yes Officers can be arrested and prosecuted the same as anyone else. I'm not sure what case law you are referring to, but it's pretty clear the DOJ will prosecute Officers that violate federal law...
        dimino 10y ago
        You are not correctly restating what I've said. I never said "Officers" wouldn't/couldn't be arrested or prosecuted. I also never said there was case law preventing the DoJ from prosecuting "Officers". I said it's ignorant to cite federal statute without also including how the courts have historically interpreted that federal statute (that's called "case law", but you know that). It can be, at best, immensely misleading when a layperson does it, and possibly manipulative when an attorney does it, considering they should know that legal parlance is significantly different from plain English, and how a court interprets legal parlance can be even further from a plain English meaning. You are, frankly, being a little rude, and unfortunately I believe you are doing so intentionally. In the interest of keeping HN light, I will not continue this conversation. I urge readers to look into specific case law surrounding the exposure of classified documents. There have been a number of articles describing why prosecuting Clinton could not possibly result in a conviction, despite the apparently clear statue. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-... http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence-claim-about-clinton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352 http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal-idUSKCN0ZM04C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-email-case-compares-similar-fbi-probes-n604856 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-em...
revelation 10y ago
This is the real downfall of the two party system, it turns ordinarily intelligent reasonable people into fools for no other reason than the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Could you explain that in a little more detail?
- tracker1 10y ago
  Oh, I can dislike both major candidates very well, thank you. As poorly managed as the alternative party candidates may be, it would be nice to see someone without a D or R next to their name in the whitehouse. It's not like they could cause that much damage with congress... that said, a lot of vetoes may not be a bad thing for a term.
btilly 10y ago
I agree that there is a double standard between the top and the rank-and-file. But not one between Hillary and others in her position. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... for an example of a similar but worse violation of the same laws with no consequences to those responsible.
- wang_li 10y ago
  Hillary Clinton isn't in a position. She's just a random private citizen at this point. One who happens to be running for president and who was once a carpet bagging Senator and retired SOS. But at the moment, she's no different than you or I (assuming you're not a government employee, in the military, or currently holding office.)
  - btilly 10y ago
    Her position is, "someone who served as a high ranking member of the administration". While she is no longer officially a member of the administration, you cannot think that the administration would wish to embarrass her with, say, a legal proceeding that could result in jail time. You'll have to go back a loooong way to find any administration that brought a legal action against a high ranking former member of said administration. And this applies to both parties. No matter what the law is, it is unequally enforced. Always has been, and I see no prospect of that changing.
  - sparky_z 10y ago
    "Major Presidential Candidate" is not equivalent to "random citizen" in the government's eyes. For one thing, they get Secret Service protection.
    - tenpies 10y ago
      It's also worth considering how Obama has given up any shred of integrity and bent over to the will of his party / Hillary. Prosecuting her could be seen as a waste of resources since a presidential pardon would likely follow. If you're a federal agency there is virtually nothing to win and everything to lose by going against Clinton at this particular point in time.
boeingcorporate 10y ago
A red "C" typically indicates Confidential. Still classified just the lowest level.

dimino 10y ago

Except for the critical fact that she was never found to have violated any law, everyone involved says this. Anyone else having done what she did would have lacked the authority to do so, whereas she did have such authority. There is no comparable situation. The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. She was different, insofar that her boss wasn't a member of the State Department, he was the head of the executive branch. Additionally, quoting legal code is pretty ignorant; it's ignoring the huge impact case law has on the US justice system. Finally, she didn't lie under oath, in the sense of a legal "lie". The word doesn't mean the same in colloquial speak as it does in terms of a legal definition.

theduckling 10y ago
Attorney here. Citing federal criminal code, not irrelevant.
- dimino 10y ago
  I didn't say it was irrelevant, I used the word "ignorant". We can substitute the word with "maliciously manipulative" or "intellectually dishonest" if you'd prefer.
  - theduckling 10y ago
    Oh "intellectually dishonest." As opposed to knowingly and willingly making false statements to the Justice Department or before Congress.
    - dimino 10y ago
      What's that got to do with quoting statute without case law contextualization? Oh right, nothing, but you wanted to get your jab in anyway.
      - theduckling 10y ago
        >The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. Not trying to be rude, but you are confusing several different issues. This is not an issue of federal criminal code applying to an inferior officer (someone not appointed by the President) vs Officer. It's absolute and yes Officers can be arrested and prosecuted the same as anyone else. I'm not sure what case law you are referring to, but it's pretty clear the DOJ will prosecute Officers that violate federal law...
        dimino 10y ago
        You are not correctly restating what I've said. I never said "Officers" wouldn't/couldn't be arrested or prosecuted. I also never said there was case law preventing the DoJ from prosecuting "Officers". I said it's ignorant to cite federal statute without also including how the courts have historically interpreted that federal statute (that's called "case law", but you know that). It can be, at best, immensely misleading when a layperson does it, and possibly manipulative when an attorney does it, considering they should know that legal parlance is significantly different from plain English, and how a court interprets legal parlance can be even further from a plain English meaning. You are, frankly, being a little rude, and unfortunately I believe you are doing so intentionally. In the interest of keeping HN light, I will not continue this conversation. I urge readers to look into specific case law surrounding the exposure of classified documents. There have been a number of articles describing why prosecuting Clinton could not possibly result in a conviction, despite the apparently clear statue. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-... http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence-claim-about-clinton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352 http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal-idUSKCN0ZM04C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-email-case-compares-similar-fbi-probes-n604856 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-em...

revelation 10y ago

This is the real downfall of the two party system, it turns ordinarily intelligent reasonable people into fools for no other reason than the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.

duncan_bayne 10y ago
Could you explain that in a little more detail?
tracker1 10y ago
Oh, I can dislike both major candidates very well, thank you. As poorly managed as the alternative party candidates may be, it would be nice to see someone without a D or R next to their name in the whitehouse. It's not like they could cause that much damage with congress... that said, a lot of vetoes may not be a bad thing for a term.

btilly 10y ago

I agree that there is a double standard between the top and the rank-and-file. But not one between Hillary and others in her position. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... for an example of a similar but worse violation of the same laws with no consequences to those responsible.

wang_li 10y ago
Hillary Clinton isn't in a position. She's just a random private citizen at this point. One who happens to be running for president and who was once a carpet bagging Senator and retired SOS. But at the moment, she's no different than you or I (assuming you're not a government employee, in the military, or currently holding office.)
- btilly 10y ago
  Her position is, "someone who served as a high ranking member of the administration". While she is no longer officially a member of the administration, you cannot think that the administration would wish to embarrass her with, say, a legal proceeding that could result in jail time. You'll have to go back a loooong way to find any administration that brought a legal action against a high ranking former member of said administration. And this applies to both parties. No matter what the law is, it is unequally enforced. Always has been, and I see no prospect of that changing.
- sparky_z 10y ago
  "Major Presidential Candidate" is not equivalent to "random citizen" in the government's eyes. For one thing, they get Secret Service protection.
  - tenpies 10y ago
    It's also worth considering how Obama has given up any shred of integrity and bent over to the will of his party / Hillary. Prosecuting her could be seen as a waste of resources since a presidential pardon would likely follow. If you're a federal agency there is virtually nothing to win and everything to lose by going against Clinton at this particular point in time.

boeingcorporate 10y ago

A red "C" typically indicates Confidential. Still classified just the lowest level.