THIS is TOTAL BS!! Double Standards for Hillary!!

a reply to: SyxPak

It's so deep your right. I think is all around the world starting at the bottom. I was in the Phillipines last year in a very small town. This cop saw that I was American. He kept asking me for something. I was like ok what do you want. He said a fifth of rum. I bought it for 3 US dollars lol. He said watch this. He pulled over a motorcycle and said your going the wrong way give me money or I give you a ticket.

So he was paid off. One hour later the cop was passed out from drinking the fifth of rum with his gun on the bench.

So corruption roots deep, your right!

a reply to: odzeandennz

Yah I know of Power. It's blatently obvious in the case of Killery. I had jobs years ago, where we installed irrigation systems to some powerful people near Me here. Some of them were cool and down to earth, some were just ass's...

a reply to: Quantum12

Wow Man that is Crap right? So You have seen some power-plays first hand!!

Not to defend the wench but she's not the only one who had a scandal involving emails and didn't pay the price.
Bush email scandal
More on that

I'm sure there were others. It's just about having enough money and knowing where the bodies are buried.

When you join the military you agree to follow very strict rules and regulations that you do not in the civilian world. So you will have military personnel punished for many things that civilians are not. Second nobody is pressing criminal charges against him. If they took this case to the DoJ and they chose to prosecute then you could say this is the same a Clinton. They have not and the DoJ would not in this case either.

All you can really do is look at the accusations against Clinton, know that in the last five years the DoJ has not prosecuted 80% of the cases brought to it of this nature and only did prosecute on 6 occasion when the person was pleading guilty as part of a plea deal.

You can agree or disagree with how often the DoJ prosecutes but, you can not claim Clinton was somehow special when she was in the 80%. The fact that they would have to spend millions on these cases that are just misdemeanors that end up with a fine or probation and are extremely hard to prove, as intent plays a role, just makes these sort of things not something that is pursued at a criminal level and left to your employer, if you still have one, to chose how to punish.

A legal precedent was set when the teflon bitch did her thing. I'd think any lawyer around should be able to show how this is a large steaming pile of horse #. And while Kankles in a pants suit won't be punished, this soldier should also not be punished. Being careless with classified documents isn't a big deal anymore. I mean, at this point, what does it matter?

Mr. Spad, I wonder if it would be difficult being commander in chief without a security clearance? I seem to remember that being the logical action when mishandling classified info.

a reply to: SyxPak

Isn't there some sort of legal principle about

grossly unequal prosecution?

originally posted by: network dude
A legal precedent was set when the teflon bitch did her thing. I'd think any lawyer around should be able to show how this is a large steaming pile of horse #. And while Kankles in a pants suit won't be punished, this soldier should also not be punished. Being careless with classified documents isn't a big deal anymore. I mean, at this point, what does it matter?

Mr. Spad, I wonder if it would be difficult being commander in chief without a security clearance? I seem to remember that being the logical action when mishandling classified info.

The President and other top levels do not have a traditional security clearance, they can not be denied because of back ground checks, actions, or anything else. Of course people like the President, Sect State, Sec Def etc. can declare anything they want classified or unclassified as the plead.

As to the legal precedent it was set long ago with the DoJ almost never prosecuting for mishandling of classified materials unless it is a guilty plea as part of larger case. Clinton got buy based on that very precedent. She is however not in the military nor subject to military law which we all know is very different than civilian.

You can like it or not but, this is not something unique to Clinton.

a reply to: MrSpad

Thank you. You make perfectly rational sense. I hadn't heard it explained like that before.

originally posted by: Quantum12
a reply to: SyxPak

Nice find. What is wrong with people!

Once corrupt, always corrupt.

There is no reverse, so they continue on the (corrupt) path they're on.

a reply to: six67seven

Yes I agree 100%, corruption starts at low levels and roots deep!

originally posted by: Quantum12
a reply to: Asktheanimals

If you or I were to set up a private server to handle Gov email we would be fried. Clinton has done this and is allowed to run for POTUS? I really makes me think how deep corruption is planted in the good USA.

The corruption runs deep enough that it would not be Hillary alone under the prosecutions microscope but most likely many other powerful politicians, American and foreign alike.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: MrSpad

Thank you. You make perfectly rational sense. I hadn't heard it explained like that before.

Thanks. Do not get me wrong, I do not agree with the way they do things. The charge however is just a misdemeanor meaning even if they do press it and spend the money and win the person pays a fine or gets probation. It is just not worth it. A rewrite of the law to make it a real crime would likely give them the incentive to push the issue but, until they do almost nobody will ever be prosecuted for mishandling declassified info. Right now they only do so when pleading down from conspiracy or other higher charges.

a reply to: SyxPak
Thank you for the great OP.

She's a dirty scoundrel. Period.

I am amazed at how quickly her fans have descended on this thread though.

How people can defend that snake and condemn the soldier is BEYOND me.

originally posted by: MrSpad
When you join the military you agree to follow very strict rules and regulations that you do not in the civilian world. So you will have military personnel punished for many things that civilians are not. Second nobody is pressing criminal charges against him. If they took this case to the DoJ and they chose to prosecute then you could say this is the same a Clinton. They have not and the DoJ would not in this case either.

All you can really do is look at the accusations against Clinton, know that in the last five years the DoJ has not prosecuted 80% of the cases brought to it of this nature and only did prosecute on 6 occasion when the person was pleading guilty as part of a plea deal.

You can agree or disagree with how often the DoJ prosecutes but, you can not claim Clinton was somehow special when she was in the 80%. The fact that they would have to spend millions on these cases that are just misdemeanors that end up with a fine or probation and are extremely hard to prove, as intent plays a role, just makes these sort of things not something that is pursued at a criminal level and left to your employer, if you still have one, to chose how to punish.

Congratulations on turning treason in to misdemeanors and holding buck privates to a higher standard than the secretary of state. When you work for the highest echelons of our government if you aren't held to higher standards than one would be in the civilian world then something is horribly awry. Our secretary of state knowingly and willingly allowed the enemies of the US easy access to sensitive information that could compromise our national security. Somehow I think the 80% figure goes out the window with the seriousness of the matter.

a reply to: SyxPak

At times I feel all of this type of ordeal is just for Our total distraction from something even more Serious, that is going to happen to all of Us on this Planet...

Me too.

Front row seats, ain't it wild?

Yeah, but this is Hillary we're talking about. You've got to face reality folks!



/sarcasm

comey set a precedence whether he knows it or not.

In all cases of mishandling classified material the prosecutors will now have to prove intent.If they can`t prove intent but go ahead and prosecute anyway then they can rightfully be accused of being an "unreasonable prosecutor".
Remember that comey said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecutor a case like this without being able to prove intent obviously the DOJ agreed with him.
once it`s been established the prosecutor is "unreasonable" then that opens a whole can of worms as to whether he is even competent to prosecute the case,or question his motives for prosecuting the case,or question his impartiality,or...
An "unreasonable" person opens themself up to all kinds of accusations and questions about their character,competency,prejudices,etc.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: MrSpad
When you join the military you agree to follow very strict rules and regulations that you do not in the civilian world. So you will have military personnel punished for many things that civilians are not. Second nobody is pressing criminal charges against him. If they took this case to the DoJ and they chose to prosecute then you could say this is the same a Clinton. They have not and the DoJ would not in this case either.

All you can really do is look at the accusations against Clinton, know that in the last five years the DoJ has not prosecuted 80% of the cases brought to it of this nature and only did prosecute on 6 occasion when the person was pleading guilty as part of a plea deal.

You can agree or disagree with how often the DoJ prosecutes but, you can not claim Clinton was somehow special when she was in the 80%. The fact that they would have to spend millions on these cases that are just misdemeanors that end up with a fine or probation and are extremely hard to prove, as intent plays a role, just makes these sort of things not something that is pursued at a criminal level and left to your employer, if you still have one, to chose how to punish.

Congratulations on turning treason in to misdemeanors and holding buck privates to a higher standard than the secretary of state. When you work for the highest echelons of our government if you aren't held to higher standards than one would be in the civilian world then something is horribly awry. Our secretary of state knowingly and willingly allowed the enemies of the US easy access to sensitive information that could compromise our national security. Somehow I think the 80% figure goes out the window with the seriousness of the matter.

First of all I have nothing but provide facts and reality. You can like them or not but, I did not create them.

I am not the person who made mishandling classified information a misdemeanor crime.

I am not the person who decided to never prosecute this misdemeanor because it is a waster of resources unless the person is willing to plead gusty.

I am not the person who wrote the UCMJ.

You claim Clinton "knowingly and willingly allowed the enemies of the US easy access to sensitive information that could compromise our national security" What enemies? Who? How do prove it was willful? How do prove anybody accessed it? Was any of the information damaging? How doe you prove that?

We had a President sell arms to our enemies in Iran and take that money use it to fund an illegal war in Central America. His vice President then refused to turn over any information or documents and while under investigation ran for President and won, then pardoned everybody who had taken the fall to give him time to get elected. If that does not get prosecuted do you really think anybody is going to get prosecuted for email with 5 year old dinner invitations for embassy guests?

Do you know how many of these charges they have managed to get a guilty verdict on without the person pleading guilty? Their is reason they do not prosecute them. In cases of real damage to national security much high charges would be made. And those would be prosecuted. When something is done wrong but no damage is done they use the mishandling charge.

This is how it works, I spent years in the business and have seen it time and again. Like or not, this reality and Clinton did not create it.

originally posted by: Tardacus
comey set a precedence whether he knows it or not.

In all cases of mishandling classified material the prosecutors will now have to prove intent.If they can`t prove intent but go ahead and prosecute anyway then they can rightfully be accused of being an "unreasonable prosecutor".
Remember that comey said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecutor a case like this without being able to prove intent obviously the DOJ agreed with him.
once it`s been established the prosecutor is "unreasonable" then that opens a whole can of worms as to whether he is even competent to prosecute the case,or question his motives for prosecuting the case,or question his impartiality,or...
An "unreasonable" person opens themself up to all kinds of accusations and questions about their character,competency,prejudices,etc.

It was already set. 80% of those cases are not prosecuted, and the ones that are come from people who are pleading guilty to a lower charge. This precedent has long been established. It is considered a waste of resources to try and prosecute a misdemeanor.