11–20 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oh right, nothing, but you wanted to get your jab in anyway.
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 militar…
Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.
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.
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…
This doesn't seem right at all. Whether they're recording the interview or not, you can say something that's false and material, and even if it doesn't actually mislead (because the agents know the truth of the matter), I believe you can be prosecuted under 18 USC 1001[1].
[1] https://popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-s...
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.
Not for breaching Federal Law (FOIA)? Not for circumventing record keeping and transparency measures? Not for destroying information relevant to an investigation? I'm with you. The horse is anything but dead - take for instance the "quid pro quo" FBI 302's from todays news.
I like the idea of a faction of the FBI standing up to Comey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for breaching Federal Law (FOIA)? Not for circumventing record keeping and transparency measures? Not for destroying information relevant to an investigation? I'm with you. The horse is anything but dead - take for instance the "quid pro quo" FBI 302's from todays news.
Those are the worst yet, and from the FBI! I like the idea of a faction of the FBI standing up to Comey.
There's not any FBI agents creating an insurgency or anything. They are just doing their jobs.
The field reports disclosed that the State Department put a lot of pressure on the FBI - in at least one case (even offering benefits in direct exchange) - to alter the classification of Clinton documents during the investigation.
In this specific case ultimately the classification of the document in question was not changed.
Definitely more corruption out of the State Department. But really doesn't speak anything of fractionalization of FBI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh "intellectually dishonest." As opposed to knowingly and willingly making false statements to the Justice Department or before Congress.
What's that got to do with quoting statute without case law contextualization? Oh right, nothing, but you wanted to get your jab in anyway.
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 be arrested and prosecuted the same as anyone else. I'm not sure what case law you are referring to, but it's pretty clear the DOJ will prosecute Officers that violate federal law...
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 militar…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's that got to do with quoting statute without case law contextualization? Oh right, nothing, but you wanted to get your jab in anyway.
>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…
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 misleading when a layperson does it, and possibly manipulative when an attorney does it, considering they should know that legal parlance is significantly different from plain English, and how a court interprets legal parlance can be even further from a plain English meaning.
You are, frankly, being a little rude, and unfortunately I believe you are doing so intentionally. In the interest of keeping HN light, I will not continue this conversation.
I urge readers to look into specific case law surrounding the exposure of classified documents. There have been a number of articles describing why prosecuting Clinton could not possibly result in a conviction, despite the apparently clear statue.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-em...
I'm confused by the reporting, as I didn't follow Cartwrights case very well. The article states that they are charging him for making false statements to the FBI. But also that the Justice Department had been after him because he was a potential leaker of the fact that Stuxnet was an American sabotage project. The way I'm reading the two together - the article doesn't make this clear - is that the Justice Department…
Earlier 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…
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.