4 ms·

"mishandling of classified information is a political question, not a legal one." I think we often understand we are under a rule of law. We are. But not the

• lsh123 5y ago
  You can also continue along the same lines: “At the cabinet level, accepting bribes is a political question, not a legal one” “At the family of the president level, accepting bribes is a political question, not a legal one” … Just wonder, where should we draw the line before we become yet another banana republic?
  • shadowgovt 5y ago
    Hypothetically, we draw the line by refusing to continue to re-elect a Congress that refuses to do its job.
• shadowgovt 5y ago
  As we observed in the past four years, the rule of law includes the idea that the guy in the big chair in the Executive has broad, sweeping pardon powers. Including, possibly, an untested authority to self-pardon for criminal activity. That is rule of law. It's possible for the law itself to be bad, of course.
  • lsh123 5y ago
    President’s pardons are part of the presidents powers as defined by laws. I would have no problem if Mr President pardoned Hillary for her misuse of classified information, etc. This is not ethical from my pov but it is legal. Edit: I would also have no problem with Mr President pardoning the NSA employee from the parent post.
    • shadowgovt 5y ago
      The shortcut we usually see is the Judiciary will not press the issue when it's obvious the President will just pardon the offender (waste of taxpayer money to do so). As "Will the President just pardon" is often back-room knowledge, it isn't necessarily something that comes up in the public-facing conversation all the time. But this is why the entire question of whether the Secretary of State broke the law is something Congress would have to press in the first place.
      • lsh123 5y ago
        So again, you admit that Hillary broke the law but JD “read the mind” of Mr President and just let her off the hook. Just for the record, compare this with other case (e.g. Flynn) where JD failed to “read the mind” and pushed all the federal government force against a person.
        • lern_too_spel 5y ago
          Comey didn't read anybody's mind. He explained why the case wasn't prosecutable. "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." Flynn's case followed existing precedent.
          • lsh123 5y ago
            I can copy/paste the Comey’s quote to apply it to the case of the NSA employee from the article. BTW, in Clinton’s case there is a clear effort to go around FOIA so you can call it obstruction of public justice if you want.
            • lern_too_spel 5y ago