Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there is a double standard between the top and the rank-and-file. But not one between Hillary and others in her position. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... for an example of a similar but worse violation of the same laws with no consequences to those responsible.
Hillary Clinton isn't in a position. She's just a random private citizen at this point. One who happens to be running for president and who was once a carpet bagging Senator and retired SOS. But at the moment, she's no different than you or I (assuming you're not a government employee, in the military, or currently holding office.)
Her position is, "someone who served as a high ranking member of the administration".
While she is no longer officially a member of the administration, you cannot think that the administration would wish to embarrass her with, say, a legal proceeding that could result in jail time. You'll have to go back a loooong way to find any administration that brought a legal action against a high ranking former member of said administration.
And this applies to both parties. No matter what the law is, it is unequally enforced. Always has been, and I see no prospect of that changing.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#23Possibly 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.
Sure thing, but you can't lie to FBI if you are not formally interrogated by them. Remember Clinton was only invited (at the best time that suits her) for a loose interview that wasn't recorded, and only brief notes done by an FBI agent. As far as we know, they even lack asking her important questions. Truly amazing to see this set of double standards on what's so many call the most free and law-abiding soil in the h…
The way the law is written you can be prosecuted for lying to your postman. Martha Stewart was not under oath when she lied to a federal agent and was sent to jail for six months based on the agent's handwritten notes of that interview.
http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-J...
>Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 militar…
This is the real downfall of the two party system, it turns ordinarily intelligent reasonable people into fools for no other reason than the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.
Could you explain that in a little more detail?
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there is a double standard between the top and the rank-and-file. But not one between Hillary and others in her position. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... for an example of a similar but worse violation of the same laws with no consequences to those responsible.
Hillary Clinton isn't in a position. She's just a random private citizen at this point. One who happens to be running for president and who was once a carpet bagging Senator and retired SOS. But at the moment, she's no different than you or I (assuming you're not a government employee, in the military, or currently holding office.)
"Major Presidential Candidate" is not equivalent to "random citizen" in the government's eyes. For one thing, they get Secret Service protection.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillary Clinton isn't in a position. She's just a random private citizen at this point. One who happens to be running for president and who was once a carpet bagging Senator and retired SOS. But at the moment, she's no different than you or I (assuming you're not a government employee, in the military, or currently holding office.)
"Major Presidential Candidate" is not equivalent to "random citizen" in the government's eyes. For one thing, they get Secret Service protection.
It's also worth considering how Obama has given up any shred of integrity and bent over to the will of his party / Hillary. Prosecuting her could be seen as a waste of resources since a presidential pardon would likely follow. If you're a federal agency there is virtually nothing to win and everything to lose by going against Clinton at this particular point in time.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 militar…
This is the real downfall of the two party system, it turns ordinarily intelligent reasonable people into fools for no other reason than the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.
Oh, I can dislike both major candidates very well, thank you. As poorly managed as the alternative party candidates may be, it would be nice to see someone without a D or R next to their name in the whitehouse. It's not like they could cause that much damage with congress... that said, a lot of vetoes may not be a bad thing for a term.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#28Possibly 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 militar…
A red "C" typically indicates Confidential. Still classified just the lowest level.
Re: Retired U.S. general charged with lying to FBI in 'Stuxnet' leak case
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. Not trying to be rude, but you are confusing several different issues. This is not an issue of federal criminal code applying to an inferior officer (someone not appointed by the President) vs Officer. It's absolute and yes Officers can…
You are not correctly restating what I've said. I never said "Officers" wouldn't/couldn't be arrested or prosecuted. I also never said there was case law preventing the DoJ from prosecuting "Officers". I said it's ignorant to cite federal statute without also including how the courts have historically interpreted that federal statute (that's called "case law", but you know that). It can be, at best, immensely mislead…
So why not prosecute her for lying to the FBI, as they have done to others?