Clinton vs Trump, Trump vs Clinton

[Eventhorizon]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/jim-comeys-statement-clinton-emails-quick-and-dirty-analysis

People do get sent to jail for accidental disclosure. Its happened numerous times. This article is a smoke screen and sham.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Oh I see. The fbi is recommending no charges. Well, the American people are screwed. When we accept the idea tbat some are above the law the law will fail everyone.
America was a good idea while it lasted.

 

[dang]

People do get sent to jail for accidental disclosure. Its happened numerous times. This article is a smoke screen and sham.

Surprised? Just like the whole election.

 

[Eventhorizon]

The Bushes and Clintons are way above the law. If we tried pulling the same shit that they do every day we would be fucked.

Im not sure why you added Bushes to your remark but whatever.

 

[dang]

Im not sure why you added Bushes to your remark but whatever.

Flip side of the same coin.

 

[Stu]

& he has a black belt in taekwondo!

People do get sent to jail for accidental disclosure. Its happened numerous times. This article is a smoke screen and sham.

People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of senstive information.

Benjamin Wittes

Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution. He co-founded and is the editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, which is devoted to sober and serious discussion of "Hard National Security Choices," and is a member of the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law. He is the author of Detention and Denial: The Case for Candor After Guantanamo, published in November 2011, co-editor of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change, published in December 2011, and editor of Campaign 2012: Twelve Independent Ideas for Improving American Public Policy (Brookings Institution Press, May 2012). He is also writing a book on data and technology proliferation and their implications for security. He is the author of Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, published in June 2008 by The Penguin Press, and the editor of the 2009 Brookings book, Legislating the War on Terror: An Agenda for Reform.

His previous books include Starr: A Reassessment, published in 2002 by Yale University Press, and Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times, published in 2006 by Rowman & Littlefield and the Hoover Institution.
Between 1997 and 2006, he served as an editorial writer for The Washington Post specializing in legal affairs. Before joining the editorial page staff of The Washington Post, Wittes covered the Justice Department and federal regulatory agencies as a reporter and news editor at Legal Times. His writing has also appeared in a wide range of journals and magazines including The Atlantic, Slate, The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, The Weekly Standard, Policy Review, and First Things.

Benjamin Wittes was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He graduated from Oberlin College in 1990, and he has a black belt in taekwondo.

Sorry, Wittes seems fairly stand up, Lawfare has been very critical of the O'Bama admin. Their articles appear reasoned and well researched. Grousing and posting hyperbole may feel good but it is no substitute for intelligent discourse. If his article is a sham present some semblance of evidence and argumentation.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Benjamin Wittes



Sorry, Wittes seems fairly stand up, Lawfare has been very critical of the O'Bama admin. Their articles appear reasoned and well researched. Grousing and posting hyperbole may feel good but it is no substitute for intelligent discourse. If his article is a sham present some semblance of evidence and argumentation.

Petraeus, far far far lesser crime.
This is a simple case of someone being above the law. Something that we lesser folks would never be afforded. If you are seriously supporting this result you are lost, but thats ok because so is America.

 

[acd]

She's Clump she's Clump she's Clump. She's in my head.

 

[Skarekrow]

Petraeus, far far far lesser crime.
This is a simple case of someone being above the law. Something that we lesser folks would never be afforded. If you are seriously supporting this result you are lost, but thats ok because so is America.

It was an example of your opinion being wrong factually, it doesn’t matter if @Stu agrees with the article or not.
You never post counter “facts” with links that have some semblance of verification.
When people present “facts” to you, you dismiss them and it vanishes from the conversation in your next posting which usually consists of a shrouded jab or personal attack at someone's intelligence.

 

[Stu]

Petraeus, far far far lesser crime.
This is a simple case of someone being above the law. Something that we lesser folks would never be afforded. If you are seriously supporting this result you are lost, but thats ok because so is America.

In the Petraeus case, the retired general acknowledged in a taped interview that he knew that some of the “black book” journals he gave to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, for a book she was writing were “highly classified,” according to court documents. He then lied to F.B.I. investigators, denying that he gave her any classified information.

In contrast, Mr. Comey said in the Clinton case that “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”

He plead to a misdemeanor.

 

[Eventhorizon]

He plead to a misdemeanor.

The point is charges were brought against him. Evey American should be standing up right now and saying wtf? Why is she above the law. She is no better than anyone else, no different. People still have no clue what this means. The rule of law is broken, permanently. With no laws we have no nation.
Its just a matter of time now. Sooner than later.

 

[Stu]

The point is ....

...The General gave classified information to a person he either was hoping to or was having sex with. The Secretary was careless with classified information. You do not see a difference? (Don't watch the americans?)

 

[brightmoon]

[MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION] A digression but The Americans is awesome!

 

[Matt3737]

The point is charges were brought against him. Evey American should be standing up right now and saying wtf? Why is she above the law. She is no better than anyone else, no different. People still have no clue what this means. The rule of law is broken, permanently. With no laws we have no nation.
Its just a matter of time now. Sooner than later.

The best-known recent prosecution involves the former CIA director who pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor count of unlawful removal and retention of classified materials. He was spared prison as part of his plea and was given two years' probation by a judge who faulted him for a "serious lapse in judgment."

The retired four-star Army general admitted that he loaned his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he was having an affair, eight binders containing highly classified information regarding war strategy, intelligence capabilities and identities of covert officers. FBI agents seized the binders from an unlocked desk drawer at his home, instead of a secure facility that's required for handling classified material.

One critical distinction is that while Clinton has repeatedly said she didn't send or receive anything that was classified at the time — something the State Department now says it's investigating — the Petraeus plea deal makes clear that he knew the information he provided was classified. He told Broadwell in a recording revealed by prosecutors that the binders had "code-word stuff in there."

When questioned by the FBI, he denied having given Broadwell classified information, though he avoided being charged with making a false statement.

The outcome drew accusations of a double standard for senior brass from defense lawyers who asserted that their less-influential clients wouldn't have been treated with such leniency.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...eral-cases-on-handling-classified-information

Yeah right. I also like how you bemoan the deterioration of the law when you've previously admonished people that they're not born with legal rights as if the rule of law were irrelevant to their concerns. Please whine more.

As I called it back in March of this year:

The law has determined that classified information is NOT synonymous with national defense information and that just because it is classified does not mean it is national defense information. The release of classified information is not necessarily illegal.

Everything else is political bullshit.

 

[Eventhorizon]

...The General gave classified information to a person he either was hoping to or was having sex with. The Secretary was careless with classified information. You do not see a difference? (Don't watch the americans?)

Stu...espionage doesnt care if you did it by intent or not. The law is very clear in this regard. You know that but you are dancing around it. My argument is futile when facts are ignored.

 

[Stu]

Stu...espionage doesnt care if you did it by intent or not. The law is very clear in this regard. You know that but you are dancing around it. My argument is futile when facts are ignored.

Anyone who wants to argue that Clinton was incompetent in her handling of classified information will get no argument from me.
Espionage as a crime is clearly defined in the us criminal code. While people do have their careers ended and can be prosecuted for mishandling information I sincerely doubt anyone has been convicted of espionage with out the prosecution proving intent.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Anyone who wants to argue that Clinton was incompetent in her handling of classified information will get no argument from me.
Espionage as a crime is clearly defined in the us criminal code. While people do have their careers ended and can be prosecuted for mishandling information I sincerely doubt anyone has been convicted of espionage with out the prosecution proving intent.

She built a server in her basement to avoid having her emails reviewed. She lied to the FBI showing intent. Its not incompetence, its intent. No reasonable person can argue otherwise.

 

[Stu]

She built a server in her basement to avoid having her emails reviewed. She lied to the FBI showing intent. Its not incompetence, its intent. No reasonable person can argue otherwise.

She did not build a server, she used her husbands, Comey says in his statement that multiple servers were in service over a period of years encompassing her term in the Senate.
Judicial watch has a very interesting lawsuit that contends that the purpose was to avoid Freedom of Information requests.

Comey staunchly defended the bureau’s decision not to pursue charges. He also said, “We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ndard-in-clinton-case-as-comey-testifies.html

Of course reasonable people can argue otherwise, there are many different ways the facts of this case can be argued. I would suggest that only a moron would argue that no reasonable person could argue otherwise.

 

[Matt3737]

Of course reasonable people can argue otherwise, there are many different ways the facts of this case can be argued. I would suggest that only a moron would argue that no reasonable person could argue otherwise.

Agreed.

Normally, I wouldn't much care for Hillary either, but the ridiculously exaggerated claims that [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] attempts to make cause me to want to defend her from such sheer absurdity. We get it. You hate her and you make the sorriest attempts to demonize her and force others into agreeing with you. Grow up already.

 

[acd]

I just listened to Trump speak about how he is going to reverse Lyndon Johnson's tax laws for religious organizations, who he said were afraid to have a voice. What!? They have the loudest voice in this country! He is pandering to evangelicals with this suggestion of the slow dismantling of the separation between church and state. I will vote for Clinton, now, after hearing this. Absolutely. As much as I can't stand her, I do not want to end up living in a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.