4 ms·

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 la

by 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...

by dimino 10y ago

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...