found online by Raymond
From Iron Knee at Political Irony:
Back in 1987, when Reagan was president, at the height of the cold war, top state department official Ronald Spiers (accidentally) leaked one of the government’s most sensitive documents (above top secret), which ended up in the hands of nearly every government in the world. The leaked document was a photo of the “National Intelligence Daily” — the daily report produced by the CIA that is so sensitive that each copy is numbered, and nobody else is allowed to even be in the room when the document is not secured.
And this is exactly the kind of excuse making that will only embolden those like Hillary Clinton that already presume to be above the law. Iron Knee is a part of the cancerous problem with our country today. Politics trumps the rule of law in his world.
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2016/07/clinton-comey-and-utter-demise-of-rule.html
No. One of many problems with our country is the need to make mountains out of mole hills to make a political point. You bemoan and shame people for putting party and politics above country in your blogpost that is doing just that.
One of the problems that I see is that we’ve got a bunch of folks on the Internet and on the TV/Radio who want to believe they know more about the law than the FBI, the Supreme Court, a Judge, an actual lawyer or WHOEVER it is who seemingly does something in a perceived political direction opposite those commenting on these political blogs or talk shows.
I’ve seen nothing but diatribe after diatribe following the statement by Director Comey and it all boils down to: ‘I wanted Clinton to go down for this and she didn’t, I’m mad!’ and they’re written/spoken behind a ‘Rule of Law’ or ‘Clinton is above the Law’ camoflage. You quoted one sentence from the Director’s statement, so clearly you must have read some of what he said. He explained what they did and their conclusions from that. You think, according to your post, that the facts Comey laid out were devestating. They were so devestating that it led him to say, “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
and
“All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
Mistakes were made, circumstancs happened and they weren’t malicious. Prosecutions in the past required more. Should we just prosecute Clinton anyways? Try to get her that long sentence in Federal Prison you want? I mean, she’s corrupt, she lacks integrity, she lacks dignity and she’s vile according to you. Unfortunately even if the FBI agreed with you on this, what makes you think she’d get a long prison sentence anyways? The article Raymond linked to was about something even more egregious than Clinton utilizing a personal email server and there was no penalty. You, in your blogpost, reference General Petraeus. General Petraeus literally, physically handed over classified information to his mistress. All he got was a fine and two years probation.
You want Clinton to serve in Federal Prison because of a few emails out of tens of thousands of emails and because you don’t like her. The Republican Director of the FBI recommends that she not be prosecuted.
And you’re the one decrying people putting party and politics above country and rule of law?
Trey, with all due respect, if you think that the Secretary of State should be allowed to set up her own server and send and receive highly classified information on her account through that server is making a mountain out of a mole hill, then you too are part of the problem, sir. Either that, or you don’t understand the national security ramifications of such a foolish action.
I admittedly do not like Hillary for political reasons. If my only problem with her was a difference in political views, I would still respect her and support her right to be president. When she has continuously skirted the law, lied to congress, the FBI, and citizens, she is no longer worthy to seek the presidency in my opinion. Anyone that deems her worthy of the office either has such a low view of the presidency or seemingly is willing to accept all of her massive legal shortcomings in order to champion their own political views/party as represented by such a corrupt individual. I truly wish Bernie Sanders had received the Democrat nomination. I disagree vehemently with him, but he at least appears to be an honest guy. I can respect that.
While I have myriads (more than two) of differences with Hillary politically, I could still respect her too as my president if she were to abide by the law. She never has done so though.
The fact that this supposedly “brilliant woman” simply didn’t understand the security implications of setting up her own server and was “careless” with highly classified secrets is utter bovine excrement. I would argue that rather than being careless and not knowing what she was doing “for her convenience”, she knew precisely what she was doing and was being exceptionally careful by being “in control” of her own correspondence without the nuisance of using a government server and all of the security protocols associated with that.
If you listened to Comey’s press conference, the first two thirds of it described in detail all of her security violations. The last third explained that they could not prove that she had “intent” to break the law so they weren’t going to recommend an indictment. Under that standard, nobody anywhere should be subjected to prosecution under this law, including Snowden.
A long time ago, I saw a sailor send a picture of himself in a naval reactor space to his parents when I was in the Navy. He was stripped of his security clearance and busted down in rank despite him not having any “intent” to break the law. Different rules apply if your name is Clinton, I suppose.
And for the record, it truly isn’t about politics with me. It is about the rule of law. That is why I vociferously championed penalties and/or punishments for Republicans when they broke the law. This was especially the case for Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and so on.
At the very least, with this one of many issues that haunt Hillary, she showed exceptionally poor judgment, even if there was no criminality in her actions as you contend. Even that would not recommend such a “careless” person to be entrusted as our nation’s commander in chief. But that is just my view from atop this mole hill, Trey.
We should expect much more “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” now that “Benghazi! (TM)” has failed to put Hillary in prison. That politically-charged “high tech lynching of an uppity woman” failed, after wasting millions of tax dollars.
Then there was this other little molehill that spawned ISIS. Not as serious a Hillary’s email and server, of course.
Bush started a war for crony profit and personal revenge, based on lies to Congress and America. At best he started a war based on “mistaken intelligence”. He lied about Saddam allied with al-Qaeda and his fictional “nukular”aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program. Bush also lied about “biological labs”and Saddam giving poison gases and training to al-Qaeda.
Again, nowhere near as “careless” as Hillary’s alleged “crimes”.
He implemented torture, also a high crime and misdemeanor. His spineless successor chose to “look forward” so nobody was accountable for countless thousands of deaths and the shame of a lawless America.
Once again, nowhere near as “careless” as Hillary’s alleged “crimes”.
Colin Powell also relied on personal emails while secretary of state. I guess IOKIYAR.
I really don’t like Hillary, but the pro-torture, war mongering, science denying, radical Right must not be allowed to run our country. Corporatist neocon Democrats are taking the country down fast enough; we don’t the Republicans showing us how they can do it even faster.
No, T.Paine. I don’t think it’s the dire situation you and others make it out to be. Especially in comparison to the other examples I’ve already mentioned. She set up a private server. A couple of emails had classified information in it. Had you actually listened/read Director Comeys statement and listened/read Director Comeys testimony in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee I feel your visceral reaction to this would be far more muted. It’s hard to reconcile what actually happened with yours (and others) reaction to it.
“If my only problem with her was a difference in political views, I would still respect her and support her right to be president.”
After nearly 2 terms of President Obama I find this statement insincere.
“When she has continuously skirted the law, lied to congress, the FBI, and citizens, she is no longer worthy to seek the presidency in my opinion.”
How? What do you know that the FBI doesn’t? Also; Explain her “Legal Shortcomings” that aren’t a resident of Tinfoil-Hatistan?
“While I have myriads (more than two) of differences with Hillary politically, I could still respect her too as my president if she were to abide by the law. She never has done so though.”
Again, after Obama, I find statements like this from you and others suspect. Also that last sentence? You should just admit it and not tip-toe around it: She will never satisfy this “prerequisite” in your eyes. Since you can’t separate your concept of ‘Rule of Law’ with ‘I really dislike this woman for reasons’.
“The fact that this supposedly “brilliant woman” simply didn’t understand the security implications of setting up her own server and was “careless” with highly classified secrets is utter bovine excrement.”
Even “Brilliant” people are capable of making a mistake. Take your Sailor friend anecdote; He made a mistake. I imagine he was pretty smart himself. Despite this it appears he also didn’t fully understand the security implications of taking a picture of himself in front of a nuclear reactor. I am sorry this honest mistake led to him losing clearance and being demoted. However using this and calling it a one-to-one comparison of how Clinton is above the law is disingenuous. 1) The Sailor was punished while still a member of the Navy. In Hillary’s situation, this is all coming after she was out of the State Department. Director Comey insinuated that Clinton would probably have faced possible punishment were she still part of the State Department. How do you administratively punish someone who is no longer part of said administration? 2) From your anecdote, the Sailor wasn’t investigated for criminal charges. Per Director Comey, in order to face criminal charges, Clinton’s case would have to involve more than carelessly setting up this private server. He laid this out in his statement and before the House Committee.
“And for the record, it truly isn’t about politics with me. It is about the rule of law. That is why I vociferously championed penalties and/or punishments for Republicans when they broke the law. This was especially the case for Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and so on.”
Of course you did, T.Paine. Tom Delay laundered money and was charged with conspiracy cause he took bribes. Dennis Hastert is a sex offender and made false statements to the FBI. Actual false statements to the FBI. Not pretend ones. Who’d defend these actions?
“At the very least, with this one of many issues that haunt Hillary, she showed exceptionally poor judgment, even if there was no criminality in her actions as you contend.”
It’s not just something that I contend. The FBI did not find enough to charge her with a crime. So this is something the FBI contends. But what do they know about criminality and rule of law?