Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks more like a political stunt. The elimination of prosecutorial discretion seems to be what they are after and they won't achieve that, IMO.
When prosecutorial discretion looks or is politically motivated I don't see a remedy for it, without eliminating it. The same with a judge's discretion on sentencing.
You are the one seeing this in partisan eyes. Think about it... I'll bet the guy that was thrown in jail for taking a few pictures while he watched Hillary who had a server with gov't secrets in a bathroom get off the hook doesn't think so. I don't think he would care what side of the isle got a pass while he was jailed, he'd see it as unequal justice.
I know people who have to get gov't clearances and they said if they did what Hillary did they'd be sitting in prison.
There is no comparison, he knowingly took an action that he knew was against regulations, Clinton’s actions were negligent. A better comparison would have been General Petreaus providing secret information but then he wouldn’t be able to get the attention of the rabid right by chanting “Hillary”.
Good luck with the lawsuit, is he paying out of pocket or is it some right wing group.
That doesn't happen without Hillary knowing about it. It would get nearly anyone else jail time and it all reads very similar to what Trump is getting condemned for.
The problem for him will be that he was found guilty- therefor this passes the bar of being a merited investigation/prosecution. He was a also convicted this being a crime for a service member. There are plenty of actions that will get you in trouble with the military that carry no risk for civilians.
Clinton is guilty of stupidity while this guy acted against something he knew was against policy.
And I still can't figure out how anyone in their right mind thinks the President (any President) has the time to personally spearhead who is/is not singled out for investigation and trial.
Why would someone still back someone so stupid for president?
There is no comparison, he knowingly took an action that he knew was against regulations, Clinton’s actions were negligent. A better comparison would have been General Petreaus providing secret information but then he wouldn’t be able to get the attention of the rabid right by chanting “Hillary”.
Good luck with the lawsuit, is he paying out of pocket or is it some right wing group.
Call it a matter pfft
Clinton’s actions were GROSSLY negligent which will get you jail time. GROSSLY negligent... Reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." ... Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful.
And to think that someone who can't handle gov't secrets with care thought she deserved to be president. Our youth is on the line and I wouldn't trust her safeguard secret information that could get them killed.
Looks more like a political stunt. The elimination of prosecutorial discretion seems to be what they are after and they won't achieve that, IMO.
When prosecutorial discretion looks or is politically motivated I don't see a remedy for it, without eliminating it. The same with a judge's discretion on sentencing.
Hillary checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified info she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Comey even strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-hillary-hook/
No matter which way you spin it, she got off the hook for doing something me or you would be sitting in prison for. I thought the left was against unequal treatment of the law. Why would you? Obviously you are willing to overlook it if you like them. Would you want the law to throw you in jail while letting a politician off the hook for doing the same thing you did?
Two tiered justice....finally white folks seeing what people of color have known for years.
When you whine about a demographic group, you ignore everyone else who suffers the same fate. The solution is not to fix the system for one group, the solution is to fix it for everyone. 'Hurray for me, the hell with you' attitude resolves nothing and wins no support.
The justice system plays favorites and shows prejudice via activist judges and career oriented prosecutors looking for a quick win, no matter the skin color.
Needs to revamped for the benefit of all along with the prison system.
The recent events at the national level have validated the perception of an unblinded justice system and strengthens the resolve to see the top LE heads held to the same standard as everyone else.
When Obama makes a tax cheat the head of the merciless IRS, and Hillary walks, despite her laundry list of crimes, its sets our collective hair on fire.
We want to see a start to equal justice and see it begin from the top down.
The particulars don't interest me that much. The big picture does though. We most certainly have a multi tier Justice system where everyone is not treated the same.
It would be cool to think that this lawsuit could change that but it won't.
One of the first things that needs to be done is for citizens to demand that our employees in Congress eliminate the practice of exempting themselves from things vote upon. If we get Obamacare, then they get Obamacare.
That also goes for the special cutouts to appease their paying lobbies and donor groups. Thus if the (D's) (who were totally responsible for that abomination) force it on us, then it is forced upon them. The same is true for the unions who were given carve outs to protect their health insurance "Cadillac plans".
.... that a lifetime politician who's also a lawyer and a SECRETARY OF STATE could NOT know the basic laws on safeguarding classified information.
Liberals use this tactic often: Ginning up an obvious lie to justify their crimes and/or avoid punishment.
It is laughable that a lifetime politician / Secretary of State claims she didn't know the basic law of a security clearance. If we couldn't trust her to handle classified information why in the world would anyone trust her to vote for her to be Commander In Chief? Amazing isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
