New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[rocketman]

Our system is fine and this isn't a liberals/conservatives anything. Comey is no partisan hack and he was right, much as it galls actual partisans.

I beg to differ, Comey showed himself to be a hack that has no scruples whatsoever. To allow Hillary to skate on violations this egregious is not only a dereliction of duty but, a legal travesty. This was all about politics and the majority of Americans know it. You might want to brush up on what happens to the common man, in this case a Marine Corps Captain who sent just one classified email through unclassified channels to save lives, self reported the infraction, and now faces disciplinary action including being expelled from the Marine Corps.

And you can honestly say that there is no double standard?....Please!

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/...classified-document-to-warn-against-massacre/

 

[rocketman]

Oh yes, and the ripple effect of allowing Hillary to skate is the precedent it sets going forward, this Captain's lawyer is going to cite Hillary's egregious acts as precedent for his client...see how that works? Can you honestly say the law did not suffer from allowing this transgression for political gain?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ton-marine-cite-defense-classified-info-case/

 

[rocketman]

Either the law is good for all, or you have no law at all...

 

[jeffblue101]

Oh yes, and the ripple effect of allowing Hillary to skate is the precedent it sets going forward, this Captain's lawyer is going to cite Hillary's egregious acts as precedent for his client...see how that works? Can you honestly say the law did not suffer from allowing this transgression for political gain?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ton-marine-cite-defense-classified-info-case/

a lot more people in higher ranks caught mishandling classified information will play the ignorance card to evade harsher punishments.

 

[rocketman]

a lot more people in higher ranks caught mishandling classified information will play the ignorance card to evade harsher punishments.

In any ranks, including civilians...

 

[jgarden]

well rest assured if they are ever investigated, the FBI director will let them walk with no punishment even if classified information was discussed.

We all know that with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, they will never investigate one of their own.

Clinton exercised poor judgment following their example, but the Republicans have squandered any moral authority when they single her out but ignore the same actions by others!

 

[rocketman]

They will call it "Playing The Hillary Card". lain:

 

[rocketman]

We all know that with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, they will never investigate one of their own.

Clinton exercised poor judgment following their example, but the Republicans have squandered any moral authority to condemn when single her out but ignore the others!

It was well beyond poor judgement, she willfully & knowingly committed multiple felonious acts and was given a pass for politics. That should trouble any law abiding American that there is such a huge double standard, Nixon was run out of office for far less...he too was guilty.

 

[Town Heretic]

I beg to differ, Comey showed himself to be a hack that has no scruples whatsoever.

Under Bush or just now? They guy confirmed 93-1?

To allow Hillary to skate on violations this egregious is not only a dereliction of duty but, a legal travesty.

To prosecute with what he had would have been nearly unprecedented. He told you so, but you don't want to hear it so you're not hearing it.

Okay.

This was all about politics and the majority of Americans know it.

You can't "know" something unless you have the means to know it. Most people don't understand the law. That's why most of the people who do went to school for it.

That said, what polling backs your belief about public response?

You might want to brush up on what happens to the common man, in this case a Marine Corps Captain who sent just one classified email through unclassified channels to save lives, self reported the infraction, and now faces disciplinary action including being expelled from the Marine Corps.

That actually happened in 2012. He was discharged in 2013. It was prosecuted by a military court, not a civilian one. They play by different rules. Still, initially not even that happened, but then the guy decided to tell a Congressman what happened.

So what appears to have actually happened is that he unintentionally transmitted classified documents, self-reported and got a wrist slap/reprimand. Or, the same discretionary action and consideration was in play and his superiors declined to press a technical violation. But then the Major decided to play politics with the wrist slap, went running to his Congressman and the upper echelon was not impressed, reexamined their discretion (likely in light of both the nose thumb and the potential civil suit from the families of Marines who later died, a suit which has already materialized, by the way) and he got the honorable discharge boot.

But wait, there's more. It turns out that what got him in hot water wasn't even the email (sorry partisans) but the reopened investigation that led to:

Maj. Chip Hodge, an attorney for the government, told the administrative hearing deciding Brezler’s fate in 2013 that Brezler illegally kept the classified material to aid in the writing of a memoir, the Marine Corps Times reported at the time. Investigators looking into the classified info breach allegedly discovered a 130-page manuscript of Brezler’s exploits in Afghanistan which contained a passage copied from a document involving Jan.​

“This case isn’t about an email getting sent downrange from a nonsecure email account,” Hodge said, according to the Times. “It’s about why he had that documentation.” ​

Source: Fox News, 12/01/2015

And you can honestly say that there is no double standard?....Please!

Sure can. Just did and showed why.

Discretion means never having to say, it's over. The guy should have kept it in house. I suspect he self-reported as a technical nod to keep someone who didn't like him from producing grief down the line, was surprised by the reprimand in his file that hurt his long-term prospects, groused to his representative, which got back to his chain of command, they weren't happy so they looked harder to teach him a lesson, the look turned up the book he was cobbling along with the unfortunately classified attachment and they had what they needed to move him out without wrecking him, because of his service, and exposing themselves to a public black eye.

Seems to be how the facts string together, at any rate.

 

[ok doser]

Either the law is good for all, or you have no law at all...

our system is fine





:darwinsm:


sorry, couldn't say that with a straight face

 

[rocketman]

Under Bush or just now? They guy confirmed 93-1?

I would say that most of Bush's picks have been pathetic liberal hacks, including his supreme court picks so, to your point yes, Comey was probably always a hack and has shown us all his full plumage of such.

To prosecute with what he had would have been nearly unprecedented. He told you so, but you don't want to hear it so you're not hearing it.

Unprecedented? Prosecution for removing classified information from it's proper place? Hardly, people are burned for much less on a regular basis. Now it is unprecedented that someone as high profile as Hillary gets to walk for committing multiple felonies for political reasons...just in case you are uniformed why the American people are upset at the clear double standard in the application of the law. BTW it's not just me TH, nobody is hearing it....

You can't "know" something unless you have the means to know it. Most people don't understand the law. That's why most of the people who do went to school for it.

That said, what polling backs your belief about public response?

Here we go again...we rubes are just to damn stupid to understand what the law says, what pompous statement. You are aware that every person that obtains clearances and accesses are briefed thoroughly on the laws governing your responsibilities of keeping it, and the consequences for violation, to which they sign documentation attesting they understand their responsibilities so, you can take your casual opinion of the federal statutes and stuff it, I know exactly what the statute says concerning what Clinton has done, just as anyone that has ever been granted access does. Is your area of expertise in federal statutes concerning clearances and the handling of classified information? or are you just injecting your opinion based on a degree posted on the wall of your study? Do you have any practical experience with this area of the law at all? Not trying to be terse (though I am) what is your area of expertise? I am not attempting to offend but, really other than accepting the spoonfed bullcrap Comey is feeding you how are you reaching the decision that he is correct, practical knowledge or politics?

That actually happened in 2012. He was discharged in 2013. It was prosecuted by a military court, not a civilian one. They play by different rules. Still, initially not even that happened, but then the guy decided to tell a Congressman what happened.

So what appears to have actually happened is that he unintentionally transmitted classified documents, self-reported and got a wrist slap/reprimand. Or, the same discretionary action and consideration was in play and his superiors declined to press a technical violation. But then the Major decided to play politics with the wrist slap, went running to his Congressman and the upper echelon was not impressed, reexamined their discretion (likely in light of both the nose thumb and the potential civil suit from the families of Marines who later died, a suit which has already materialized, by the way) and he got the honorable discharge boot.

But wait, there's more. It turns out that what got him in hot water wasn't even the email (sorry partisans) but the reopened investigation that led to:

[FONT=&]

Maj. Chip Hodge, an attorney for the government, told the administrative hearing deciding Brezler’s fate in 2013 that Brezler illegally kept the classified material to aid in the writing of a memoir, the Marine Corps Times reported at the time. Investigators looking into the classified info breach allegedly discovered a 130-page manuscript of Brezler’s exploits in Afghanistan which contained a passage copied from a document involving Jan.​

[/FONT]

[FONT=&]“This case isn’t about an email getting sent downrange from a nonsecure email account,” Hodge said, according to the Times. “It’s about why he had that documentation.” [/FONT]​

Source: Fox News, 12/01/2015


Sure can. Just did and showed why.

Discretion means never having to say, it's over. The guy should have kept it in house. I suspect he self-reported as a technical nod to keep someone who didn't like him from producing grief down the line, was surprised by the reprimand in his file that hurt his long-term prospects, groused to his representative, which got back to his chain of command, they weren't happy so they looked harder to teach him a lesson, the look turned up the book he was cobbling along with the unfortunately classified attachment and they had what they needed to move him out without wrecking him, because of his service, and exposing themselves to a public black eye.

Seems to be how the facts string together, at any rate.

It obviously is not over and he will be using Hillary Clintons skates as precedent, this was posted two days ago...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-information-will-cite-hillary-clintons-case/

 

[rocketman]

our system is fine





:darwinsm:


sorry, couldn't say that with a straight face

Pretty pathetic isn't it...

 

[ok doser]

BTW it's not just me TH, nobody is hearing it....

just keeping repeating after me:

our system is fine

our system is fine

our system is fine

Here we go again...we rubes are just to damn stupid to understand what the law says

darn straight

only them law-skool edumacated geenyouses can unnerstand what the law says

 

[ok doser]

by the way, is anybody surprised that town, who voted for bammy in 2008 and who supports perverts getting married, is supporting Hillary?

 

[rexlunae]

Any material we handled, looked at, intercepted, whether reports, communications, whatever, we had to account for it. We had to sign into and out of vaults where information was stored. This was back in the early 80's and we had a lot of paper. We dealt with equipment that also had a classified component attached to it's use. I can tell you for a fact that if I so much as walked out of the vault or left a secure area and accidentally had something on my person or was unable to account for as little as one document, I would have probably lost rank and definitely would be deemed unfit to handle sensitive information.

Comey did say that Clinton's conduct probably would have warranted administrative penalties such as this. But since she no longer works for State, they can't really do that very well.

That would have resulted in my losing my access to classified information. I would not be able to continue doing my job. Also at that time, when going through a back ground check, homosexuals, recreational drug users, credit risks were just a couple of things that would absolutely disqualify people from getting a clearance. How things have changed. Hillary Clinton is unfit and her party or leaning has nothing to do with it. She has shown to the entire country that she has no core.

The question is going to have to be, who is more fit?

 

[rexlunae]

How does this statute not apply to former First Lady/US Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

It could. But they would either have to prove gross negligence, which is conscious disregard of needed care, or knowledge that the illegal removal had occurred. Either way, they'd have to prove Clinton's knowledge or intention, which the FBI said they don't have the evidence to do. That's what distinguishes her from Petraeus.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It could. But they would either have to prove gross negligence, which is conscious disregard of needed care, or knowledge that the illegal removal had occurred. Either way, they'd have to prove Clinton's knowledge or intention, which the FBI said they don't have the evidence to do. That's what distinguishes her from Petraeus.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Guilty, case closed.

 

[rocketman]

It could. But they would either have to prove gross negligence, which is conscious disregard of needed care, or knowledge that the illegal removal had occurred. Either way, they'd have to prove Clinton's knowledge or intention, which the FBI said they don't have the evidence to do. That's what distinguishes her from Petraeus.

The fact she knew the rules, signed documentation she knew the rules, and willfully defied them is textbook gross negligence. The only reason she is not being prosecuted is for political reasons, and everyone can see the double standard quite clearly.

 

[Town Heretic]

by the way, is anybody surprised that town, who voted for bammy in 2008 and who supports perverts getting married, is supporting Hillary?

Is anyone surprised that Sod is finding another reason to talk about me?

Anyone at all?

Omitted by Sod? That I opposed the President in his reelection bid.

And, I "support" gay marriage by recognizing their right to it the same way I "support" the Irish by recognizing they have a right to parade and assemble if they want to, legally.

Lastly, Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. I don't like her. I'm not voting for her, but it would have been a political circus squandering millions of dollars on the hope of political gain by some partisans. Comey was right.

"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." Comey

 

[Town Heretic]

I would say that most of Bush's picks have been pathetic liberal hacks, including his supreme court picks so, to your point yes, Comey was probably always a hack and has shown us all his full plumage of such.

Hindsight or were you posting to that effect prior?

BTW it's not just me TH, nobody is hearing it....

Hyperbole aside, what's your polling data on the point, out of curiosity? I've been looking to see what the reaction is, how partisan or not.

Here we go again...we rubes are just to damn stupid to understand what the law says

Not what I actually wrote, but when you talk like that you might as well be.

There's more to the law than the black letter of it. There's the spirit, the intent of parties, any number of considerations that go into prosecutorial discretion. And if you don't understand that and the history of precedent and you have an ax to grind you're going to be full of outrage and vinegar when you shouldn't be.

, what pompous statement.

No,you're just assumptive and hostile.

I know exactly what the statute says concerning what Clinton has done, just as anyone that has ever been granted access does. Is your area of expertise in federal statutes concerning clearances and the handling of classified information? or are you just injecting your opinion based on a degree posted on the wall of your study?

Now that's a pathetic tactic, to borrow from you.

You didn't get the answer you wanted, trotted out a case you didn't know well enough to attempt to make a case it didn't and when I pull the wings off of that you go after the messenger. Well, my degree, buddy, came with a great deal of study you haven't had after an incredible process of elimination to avail myself of the education and honing you never went through. A Bar examination followed that and yearly continuing education followed that. So that degree hanging on my wall demonstrates something you can't measure against on the subject.

Else, what I've mostly done is cite to people who are particularly expert in the area, from heads of agencies to professors who regularly treat the subject. I started doing that months ago. What I've mostly limited my legal opinion to are things I've dealt with regularly and am intimately familiar with, like prosecutorial discretion and precedent, etc. It's why aCW tried the opposite of your tactic by suggesting I ask one of the scholars I've noted for my/an opinion.