It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Feds torpedo Navy sailor's 'Clinton defense'

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:03 PM
This story is from CNN, not my favorite at the moment but this story makes me laugh.

Didn't see it posted, if it has been though, sorry.

A Navy sailor facing prison time for taking photos of a classified area on a US nuclear attack submarine is asking a federal judge for leniency, citing the government's decision not to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information.

This is obviously not going to work, but it will add a few layers of hypocrite paint to the Clinton debacle.

Advocating for probation, Hogan said it would be "unjust and unfair" for Saucier -- who has pleaded guilty -- to do prison time "for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid."

This will be an interesting case to watch, at least to couch-judge the mental gymnastics.

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:07 PM
Two sets of justice.

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:11 PM
It's hillaryous.

See what I did there?

I'm with that guy though- applying a different set of rules to criminals of different classes isn't justice, it's nonsense.

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:16 PM
A few differences between this and Clinton.

First of all this sailor plead guilty. In order to use a Clinton defense you have to start lying from step one and never admit wrong doing at all.

Did find it amusing that the prosecutors noted that he didn't use an "intent" defense.

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:37 PM
The only difference in the 2 cases is that clinton claimed she didn`t know that she was sending classified material in E-mails. The important part though is that the F.B.I refused to recommend an indictment not because she knew or didn`t know the material was classified but because they couldn`t prove intent.Both of these cases are the same in that there is no proof of intent, therefore he should be given the same benefit of the doubt that clinton was given.

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: chronfucius

If he was smart he would have used the "I did not intend to jeopardize national security", isn't that the wording the all powerful Hillary has used to get off scot-free?

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:57 PM
a reply to: abe froman

well said - should've come out of the gate in straight denial and lying to actually pull it off. It wouldn't hurt if he also had millions of dollars and tens of thousands of "peons" at his disposal to help spread propaganda, but how can a Sailor do that on a US Navy salary? He wasn't getting paid $225,000 per "visit" by a bunch of financial firms to come and pretend to do a speech

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:02 PM
a reply to: FamCore

"I do not recall nor did I intend to have sexual relations with that woman!"

Her husband said something like that right?

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:05 PM
a reply to: chronfucius

Must have been an "accident" that he was getting a B Job from Monica...

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:06 PM
Was this the guy who took a picture of the inside of a ship to 'show his kids one day' where he used to work?

Versus FOUR WHOLE SOLID YEARS of 'having no intent' of leaving information open to whoever came along, sequestering thousands of emails inside a system that her closest aides were using also with their OWN accounts, and being clueless as to what classified information or markings look like, even though you're fourth in line to the Presidency?

Is a President Hillary going to pardon Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and the rest who released information for the public good? Or is the 'public good' not one of her criteria?

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:38 PM
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

the public good is one of her top criteria, as in, she`ll tell the public what`s good for them.

new topics

top topics


log in