Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case

Possibly flogging a dead horse here, but note that one can face criminal charges for lying to the FBI.

This may be the one and only thing I agree with Trump on: Clinton should have been prosecuted over the email server affair, even if only for lying about it.

Agreed. There is very clearly a double standard for Clinton vs Everyone else in the Govt/Military. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached). Her lies weren't to the public, they were to the Justice Department - not knowing that the red "C" stood for classified. Furthermore, her concealment and destruction of her emails were federal crimes (plural).

Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority.

See:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

Whether it's her use of elaborate mechanisms to circumvent federal law, lying underoath or the astounding acceptance of foreign donations for a charity that directly supports her family (uhh, bribe?), I don't understand why her actions are excused away by otherwise rational people.

See: State Dept. official accused of offering 'quid pro quo' in Clinton email scandal

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-c...

Except for the critical fact that she was never found to have violated any law, everyone involved says this. Anyone else having done what she did would have lacked the authority to do so, whereas she did have such authority. There is no comparable situation.

The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. She was different, insofar that her boss wasn't a member of the State Department, he was the head of the executive branch.

Additionally, quoting legal code is pretty ignorant; it's ignoring the huge impact case law has on the US justice system.

Finally, she didn't lie under oath, in the sense of a legal "lie". The word doesn't mean the same in colloquial speak as it does in terms of a legal definition.

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I used the word "ignorant".

We can substitute the word with "maliciously manipulative" or "intellectually dishonest" if you'd prefer.

Oh "intellectually dishonest." As opposed to knowingly and willingly making false statements to the Justice Department or before Congress.