New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Wow, and all this time I thought it was partisan politics as usual.

 

I just one Hillary supporter here attempt to mental gymnastics there way into a rational scenario where a lowly E-3 in the military DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS HILLARY and DOES NOT receive a court martial.

 

Well good, because no one is going to get even conservatives to vote for Trump.

 

Oh of course it is. Otherwise, we'd be examining other instances of past government officials. The ONLY reason this is even being discussed is that Clinton is running for President. The Republicans wouldn't care otherwise, save for one or two. Same for the Democrats- they made some good points, but a lot of stupid ones, also. It's very sad that I could predict the line of questioning almost exactly based on whether they had an R or D in front of their name.


And unless you're lying to yourself, or truly 100% independent, you know you watched this hoping for an outcome favorable to your politics. We can all admit that, myself included. The Dems want to pretend that she did nothing wrong when clearly she did, and the Republicans want to read into it what is not there, which there isn't. I'll take the judgment of 20+ FBI professionals over the word on this board any day. And if Clinton doesn't get elected, it's all on her.

 

Since UCMJ doesn't really apply to non military folks - this is a stupid question to begin with.

But anyway, in the fantasy universe where it does, find me a lowly E-3 in the military who did the "EXACT SAME THING" and who faced criminal prosecution?

The FBI could not, the DOJ could not. Perhaps you can? I doubt it though.

From what I've read, and frankly it's probably not nearly as much as the Clinton Derangement Syndrome crowd - most prosecutions here involve clear manifestations of intent to take sensitive material and deliberately expose it to others who are not supposed to see it - think David Petraeus or Chelsea Manning.

Neither of these elements was present here.

 

Absolutely. If, following their investigation, they determine that the E-3's actions did not require a court martial, they would not do it. I could see the exact same outcome, actually. Since I am not privy to all the details of what the FBI discovered, I can only go by what they decided. It's possible they made a mistake, but I'm assuming based on Comey's comments that they did a thorough job. Unless I were to review all the information, it would not be right to pass judgment.

That goes for the two men who were killed by police officers yesterday. Regardless of how bad it looks, it is not for me to judge them unless I reviewed all the facts, which I am not privy to. It looks bad, for sure, but I cannot sentence these officers in my court of public opinion without examining all of the evidence- a fact lost on many guilty-until-proven-innocent folks out there on both sides.

 

An E-3 would probably be poor and as we all know, laws are for poor people not for Clintons.

 

James Comey applied the same criteria to Hillary Clinton that he would apply to anyone else. She did not get favorable treatment.

Or, James Comey and his team are liars and obstructors of justice.

 

A valid point of view. I think it's hard to find an example that fits. Most are either a lot less (1 email, etc), or a lot more (Snowden). Further, the others have usually been with current government employees, where the ramification was usually termination. Clinton fits in between both parameters.

Which brings one back to the basic question:

For prosecution, yes, I would agree. But then I don't know of an example where gross negligence was present without intent. Further, intent is explicitly ruled out as a factor in that.

Which brings us back to the same basic question: Were Hillary's transgressions sufficient to warrant prosecution? And, it seems, that probably needs to be evaluated on its own, as there aren't any comparable instances that I have heard of.

We should remember that Hillary herself dismissed a State Department employee for using his own email system (not server). That seems a data point worth factoring in, both as a precedent, and as it clearly shows she felt that doing so was unacceptable behavior, yet she did it anyway. Does that not show intent?

 

When Roger Clemens lied to Congress he got indicted. So no Comey didn't.

 

Clinton basically got off because the FBI decided she was too stupid to understand what she was doing.

And Clinton supporters claim this as a win for Clinton.

 

LOL sure he did. You really think for just any random person the FBI director would say "Sure there's plenty of evidence that they committed multiple felonies, but let's not prosecute"?

REALLY?

 

If that were the case, yes. But you are letting your partisanship cause you to state it as thus:

"Sure there's plenty of evidence that they committed multiple felonies..."

If that was what he said, I would agree. But that is not what he said. You seem to be having a problem with interpretation here.

What he said, to paraphrase, was that there was not enough clear evidence to warrant indictment for a crime. He did not say there was evidence they committed multiple felonies- that is your incorrect interpretation.

So, just admit that you think Comey and his entire team are lying.

 

That is your interpretation. It is not a correct one.

 

Hillary Clinton did not lie to Congress.

 

That is exactly what he said. He said that there was evidence that Hillary committed multiple felonies but he didn't think that prosecutors would want to take the case.

He said that there was not clear evidence that she broke those laws on purpose, not that she didn't break those laws.....something that is irrelevant when it comes to the particular crimes she committed.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-email-not-sophisticated-fbi-225218

"So you have to follow certain guidelines and I guess my question is she's a very sophisticated person. She did execute that document, correct?" DeSantis followed up, as Comey affirmed that both she and her aides agreed to similar arrangements.

Comey declined to say whether he saw Clinton's private server as an attempt to keep Congress and the public from her communications.

Given the assumption that Clinton had agreed to safeguard classified information, DeSantis asked, "How would you not then not know that that was something that was inappropriate to do?"

"Well, I want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment," Comey said.

"Isn't she an original classification authority though?" DeSantis asked, to which Comey responded, "Yes, sir, yes, sir."

"Good grief," DeSantis said, before thanking Comey for attending.

It's her job to deal with classified information. He basically said she is incompetent

 

That is simply not true. The crime in this case is absolutely based on level of intent. So, again, you are wrong. And I would certainly take the word of Comey and his entire team over yours. It's just that, from my experience, integrity is particularly important to them.

I've worked with at least 5 different people in the FBI on their resumes, and they all to a person asked me to emphasize their integrity (yes a small sample size). They are often the most difficult resumes to write bc whereas with nearly everyone else, you emphasize quantifiable achievements, you have to be very generic about their background and achievements. For example, when we talk about their Presidential details, we can't mention the dates or locations, only the length of time the Detail operation took place- and we do emphasize overseas detail assignments bc they are much more lengthy and complex. But we can't mention dates, countries, or the specific Presidents even.

 

No, it's really not. The statute says that gross negligence is the same thing as ill intent. If you want to argue about this, at least do your homework. The ONLY reason this wasn't prosecuted was because it was Hillary Clinton and she was running for president. Anyone else is brought up on charges. You don't have to take my word for it, look the actual law up yourself. Do the homework then come back.

 

He didn't accuse her of gross negligence.

“Extreme carelessness doesn’t necessarily translate into gross negligence,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

“The only times I have seen these statutes used has been situations in which people knew they were disclosing classified, confidential information, or they could show they didn’t really care,” Levenson said.

Comey said investigators determined that Clinton exchanged 110 emails that contained government secrets and that she and her staff should have known the information was classified.

But unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.

The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place,” a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.