Hillary and the classified emails

[Danny Bateman]

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

A good review.

 

2 quotes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

 

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

[zoogs]

I only skimmed that, BRB, but my first thought is that the FBI shouldn't have done that, either. That's the problem with crackdowns. They sound good, but they destroy people who should not be destroyed. I am happy to oppose witch hunts and crackdowns, as a general rule!

 

And also that speaking to a reporter is somewhat different from flouting new email rules that did not exist for her predecessors.

 

Perhaps if Mr. Kim had been a prominent Senator running for office, we could have come to the realization of how inane the case against him was. The privilege of being at the top, I suppose. Things are a lot more fair.

 

I'm reminded of the Brock Turner sex assault case. I do think he got off rather light in terms of jail time, but a greater injustice is that so many without his comparative privilege -- the kind that makes a judge look at him and go, "Awwwww, but he has so much ahead of him! I don't want to ruin that!" -- are denied the same opportunity for rehabilitation.

[BigRedBuster]

I only skimmed that, BRB, but my first thought is that the FBI shouldn't have done that, either. That's the problem with crackdowns. They sound good, but they destroy people who should not be destroyed.

 

And also that speaking to a reporter is somewhat different from flouting new email rules that did not exist for her predecessors.

Which, falls pretty much into my area of opinion on this.

 

It's not enough to destroy someone's life but it's also big enough that it shouldn't be just....meh...so what.

[Landlord]

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

 

So the precedent is we don't go after the top and the powerful, because then we'd have to go after everybody?

[TAKODA]

 

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

 

So the precedent is we don't go after the top and the powerful, because then we'd have to go after everybody?

 

 

This ↑ +1

 

Can you spell "JOKE"? Oh wait, I just did!

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

So the precedent is we don't go after the top and the powerful, because then we'd have to go after everybody?

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

 

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

[Saunders]

[TAKODA]

 

 

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

So the precedent is we don't go after the top and the powerful, because then we'd have to go after everybody?

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

 

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

This was a crime that could have been and should have been, prosecuted dudeguyy.

 

Read 793F Title 18, then listen once again to Comey's comments.

 

They elected not to pursue further.

[Landlord]

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

[knapplc]

I think an important distinction to be made here is that the FBI decided not to prosecute not because she's not guilty, but because the prosecution is unlikely to result in a conviction.

 

At no point did the FBI/Comey say she wasn't guilty.

[TAKODA]

I am just baffled.

 

If the accounting that Comey gave regarding Hilary's situation is accurate, wouldn't that (even without prosecuting her for the crime), keep her from qualifying for "any high clearance government office"?

[TGHusker]

Regardless of whether the probability of conviction is high or low, a crime was committed and this verbal slap on the hand only feeds the Clinton's unsatisfied hunger for power. The FBI played weak knee and should have at a min pursued this to the point of some negotiation - drop out of election or go to prison - assuming a conviction. This smells pretty bad I wonder what turd Bill Clinton gave our wonderful attorney general during that air plane visit in Phoenix. And how Clinton is campaigning wt Obama flying Air Force 1. Was that part of the deal? The Clinton's probably have some dirt on Obama as well. (thought I'd go all conspiratory here and take it to the "Nth' degree. ) One has to wonder about all of the 'insider political trading ' going on among the elites in DC.

[TGHusker]

I think an important distinction to be made here is that the FBI decided not to prosecute not because she's not guilty, but because the prosecution is unlikely to result in a conviction.

 

At no point did the FBI/Comey say she wasn't guilty.

Holy Milquetoast! Knapp. I'll use your word of the day here. I think it is a label the FBI can shamefully wear today.

 

(source) milque·toast [milk-tohst] noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated: a milquetoast who's afraid to ask for a raise

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Do you understand the precedent you'd be setting by prosecuting Clinton? By prosecuting her for this, you open a can of worms that entails prosecuting each and every person who also sent or received classified information to or from her. That would eviscerate the federal government.

 

It's similar to problems with how Congress wants to make the classified papers re: 9/11 public and allow for lawsuits to be brought against Saudi Arabia. By setting that precedent, that we can sue a foreign nation (with a very long statute of limitations-- that would be another issue that would need to be hammered out), it opens up the US and the rest of the world to litigation from people we've wronged in the past. It would turn into a litigious nightmare.

 

So the precedent is we don't go after the top and the powerful, because then we'd have to go after everybody?

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

 

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

This was a crime that could have been and should have been, prosecuted dudeguyy.

 

Read 793F Title 18, then listen once again to Comey's comments.

 

They elected not to pursue further.

 

 

Ok, I took a look at it, and here's the text:

 

 

 

(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

Now, I'm certainly no legal expert. I'd never claim to be. I've tried to glean what I can throughout this process from those who are much more well-versed in such matters than myself.

 

Basically, from what I understand, what she did failed to meet the conditions of either of the bolded. Apparently the legal definition of those terms is harder to prove in court than we would assume as laypeople.

 

I don't know for sure on the gross negligence point if hosting email on a separate server constitutes "removing it from its proper place of custody." There seems to me to be a lot of uncertainty there since it's all electronic communication-- I don't know how they determine "proper place of custody." One would think apparently it would be as simple as not being on a State Dept server, but apparently, this isn't so.

 

The same logic applies to the "having knowledge" bit. It's very similar to the statute that Comey mentioned. It specifically requires legally provable "gross negligence" or "intent," neither of which condition she satisfied.

 

This is just what I've come to understand throughout this process. I'm open to discussion and insight from others.

[Danny Bateman]

 

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

 

 

Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass.

 

Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle.