6 ms·

> Occam's razor in me (which i accept will be different for all) says that if Clinton was involved in corruption Corruption aside, she clearly mishandled class

> Occam's razor in me (which i accept will be different for all) says that if Clinton was involved in corruption Corruption aside, she clearly mishandled classified information, as the FBI found. The problem here is that the FBI chose not to prosecute her while other military servicemen HAVE been prosecuted for much less. This is a problem.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Clinton is not a military service member, so (even ignoring the "men" part) your "other military servicemen" is wrong in a fairly critical way. Civilian and military law differs.
- scintill76 10y ago
  Consider General David Petraeus. He was investigated by the FBI, similarly to Clinton, and charged by the DOJ at their recommendation. He pled guilty and got a pretty big punishment (2 year probation and $100k fine.) As far as the actual laws go, I don't think that proceeded much differently than it could have with Clinton, so I'm not sure your distinction between civilian/military is significant here. I could be wrong though, as I am not sure whether he was "officially in the military" (under their jurisdiction) at the time of the crime, and retired generals and such might be a special case anyway. There are differences in the specifics of the cases, such that the different outcomes are justifiable enough in my mind, but I think there is a fair amount of unofficially cutting the bumbling civilian some slack and/or holding the foolish general more accountable, when the applicable laws and court process are probably the same. I think they could have held her to a similar standard, if they wanted to.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    I don't think the cases are meaningfully similar; petraeus deliberately and knowingly gave highly classified information including current combat information and identities of covert agents to an unauthorized person whose intended use was writing a book (he was also having a affair with her at the time, but that's less relevant to the security-related offense); the FBI concluded they had evidence to pursue a felony charge under the Espionage Act, but they ended up getting him to plea to a lesser charge of mishandling classified information.
    - scintill76 10y ago
      Regarding Clinton's emails being seemingly less sensitive: "In one case, according to media reports, one of Clinton’s potentially classified e-mail exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones. That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets." [1] I'm not sure we know much more about the contents of Clinton's emails. I think it's safe to assume some were as "highly classified" as the things Petraeus disclosed. I don't think the law cares, or should care, about whether it's mundane stuff about drones or North Korea's nuclear program, or if it's about covert agents' identities -- if it's classified, it's simply illegal to disclose it to unauthorized persons or through unauthorized channels like a personal email server. It doesn't matter whether your reason is so that your mistress can write your biography, or so that your colleague can do their job, or so that you can use a Blackberry to access your email -- doing it the wrong way is mishandling C.I no matter your intent. (But I'm not a lawyer.) I'm all for punishing Petraeus harder btw, as he got off pretty easily for what was practically treason with his mistress! But if keeping "books [with top-secret information] in an unlocked drawer in his study"[2] is part of the grounds for his eventual conviction of mishandling CI, so is Clinton's keeping it on a personal, not-well-secured server in her home. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillarys-problem-the-government-classifies-everything http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillarys-problem... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-set-to-plead-guilty-to-mishandling-classified-materials/2015/04/22/3e6dbf20-e8f5-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petra...

dragonwriter 10y ago

Clinton is not a military service member, so (even ignoring the "men" part) your "other military servicemen" is wrong in a fairly critical way. Civilian and military law differs.

scintill76 10y ago
Consider General David Petraeus. He was investigated by the FBI, similarly to Clinton, and charged by the DOJ at their recommendation. He pled guilty and got a pretty big punishment (2 year probation and $100k fine.) As far as the actual laws go, I don't think that proceeded much differently than it could have with Clinton, so I'm not sure your distinction between civilian/military is significant here. I could be wrong though, as I am not sure whether he was "officially in the military" (under their jurisdiction) at the time of the crime, and retired generals and such might be a special case anyway. There are differences in the specifics of the cases, such that the different outcomes are justifiable enough in my mind, but I think there is a fair amount of unofficially cutting the bumbling civilian some slack and/or holding the foolish general more accountable, when the applicable laws and court process are probably the same. I think they could have held her to a similar standard, if they wanted to.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  I don't think the cases are meaningfully similar; petraeus deliberately and knowingly gave highly classified information including current combat information and identities of covert agents to an unauthorized person whose intended use was writing a book (he was also having a affair with her at the time, but that's less relevant to the security-related offense); the FBI concluded they had evidence to pursue a felony charge under the Espionage Act, but they ended up getting him to plea to a lesser charge of mishandling classified information.
  - scintill76 10y ago
    Regarding Clinton's emails being seemingly less sensitive: "In one case, according to media reports, one of Clinton’s potentially classified e-mail exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones. That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets." [1] I'm not sure we know much more about the contents of Clinton's emails. I think it's safe to assume some were as "highly classified" as the things Petraeus disclosed. I don't think the law cares, or should care, about whether it's mundane stuff about drones or North Korea's nuclear program, or if it's about covert agents' identities -- if it's classified, it's simply illegal to disclose it to unauthorized persons or through unauthorized channels like a personal email server. It doesn't matter whether your reason is so that your mistress can write your biography, or so that your colleague can do their job, or so that you can use a Blackberry to access your email -- doing it the wrong way is mishandling C.I no matter your intent. (But I'm not a lawyer.) I'm all for punishing Petraeus harder btw, as he got off pretty easily for what was practically treason with his mistress! But if keeping "books [with top-secret information] in an unlocked drawer in his study"[2] is part of the grounds for his eventual conviction of mishandling CI, so is Clinton's keeping it on a personal, not-well-secured server in her home. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillarys-problem-the-government-classifies-everything http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillarys-problem... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-set-to-plead-guilty-to-mishandling-classified-materials/2015/04/22/3e6dbf20-e8f5-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petra...