In this case there is a difference since the statute in question requires there to be criminal intent. No intent, no law broken.
You don’t understand why we would defend not locking someone up who didn’t commit a crime? Perhaps because we prefer to live under rule of law. There’s countries where rule of law doesn’t apply–perhaps you would prefer one of them?
She reasonably believed she hadn’t received classified information, and said so. She turned out to be wrong. That’s not a lie, it’s a mistake. Like the one you made when you said it was a lie.
Could you name two? The only one I found that was close was that submariner who snapped pics of the engine room but he was also caught blatantly destroying evidence as well.
Here’s a way to defuse the whole mess- before leaving office, Obama gives Hillary a full, clear, and absolute pardon for everything involving the email affair. Sure, it will give the right wing apoplexy, but Obama pisses them off anyway just by putting on a pair of socks. So I say screw 'em, let’s kill it in the crib and it will be forgotten by 2020.
Actually, there is. She didn’t try to sell classified materials or otherwise deliberately give such information to unauthorized persons.
If you had read Comey’s statement, you would know this.
Got cites for those who did far less?
Name them.
I’m not the one stretching points to play partisan defense. I’ve been very hard on Clinton over the email scandal. But that doesn’t mean I think you can just say any old thing you want about it. It’s bad enough without exaggeration.
While that might make the partisan Clinton backers feel good, it’s a terrible idea as it will cast a shadow over her entire presidency. The first female president and the first one to enter office with a presidential pardon!
As I’ve stated many times, based on 15 years of both active duty and civilian military experience working with classified and controlled info, I’ve known dozens and likely hundreds of people who have mishandled classified/controlled data in similar or identical ways to the way Hillary is reported to have done. None were prosecuted, and very, very few even lost their job. The vast majority were disciplined and re-trained.
I’ll bet you were screaming with frustration that you had to type this out again.
Yes, we know what your opinion on this is. However, the FBI director and the FBI investigative team that looked at all of this earlier this year disagree with you.
I guess that’s why Comey’s letter said that “the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant”. :rolleyes:
Well, let’s just ask Trump! He does not suffer any indecision or uncertainty, he know exactly what’s what. Hillary undermined our national security with criminal intent, no question about it. He’s a bit circumspect about who Hillary was working for, on who’s behalf she did these treasonous and poisonous things. Perhaps it was nothing more than her long-standing and purified hatred of everything American? Shirley he must know that as well, seeing as he has such comprehensive and universal knowledge of the truth. (Some might wonder if Trump would know the truth if it groped his daughters, but we can set that aside for now.)
And certainly this has caused me to question my judgement, no doubt about that! I thought we finally had it, the honest conservative, a Republican not only a paragon of reason and truth, but a man of integrity! Behold the man! An honest conservative, someone who would give us a clean argument, someone who would play hard, but play fair!
Well, fuck me for stupid. Did get fooled again.
There would be no presidency. I think Clinton supporters underestimate how many people are currently going to vote for Clinton while holding their nose. If she was going into Election Day with a pardon in her hand the just proves everything Trump is saying about corruption and “drain the swamp.” Clinton’s lead is shrinking but it’s still a lead.
Unanimously! What was it, thirty members of the team? And not one said anything different. Let the record show that!
Oh, wait, the record already does show that. Guess that’s it, then, can’t make 'em see what they are determined not to! You can lead a horticulture…
Although not explicitly stated, I’m certain Bob meant for the pardon to come after HRC was elected.
Sure, that was my intent. It would be a bit less insane to wait till after the election. Sure, she’d have a cloud over her head and get zero Republican cooperation. But let’s face it, Republicans will not make any more attempt to work with her than they did with Obama. As much as I want her to win, all she’ll be able to accomplish will be to name Supreme Court justices and then only if Dems control the Senate and then only if they nuke the filibuster. If Republicans control the Senate, then we have 8 more years of gridlock and will have a Supreme Court with 5 members.
You are simply wrong about this. Intent always matters in criminal proceedings. This is exactly the distinction I was making in raising the Petraeus case. Petraeus knew he was passing classified information and he did it anyway. You bet intent matters. And for all that, he suffered only a misdemeanor conviction.
In Clinton’s case, if she passed classified information but wasn’t aware it was classified, or if it was classified retroactively as much of it was, then how on earth can you say her carelessness rises to the same level of criminal intent as Patraeus’s? It just doesn’t.
Bob, what effect do you think such a pardon would have on Republican efforts to impeach Clinton? I think the constitutional question of a blanket pardon on impeachment is at best unsettled; I think it’d be guaranteed to make impeachment proceedings occur.
It’s a terrible, terrible idea.
They’re going to impeach her anyway. But to impeach her over something Obama did? Makes no sense.