General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 162

I love it when Facebook Court is now in session

 

I'm pretty sure everyone (including Hillary) agrees that what she did was pure negligence. Continue to justify it all you want, regardless of politics, if this was anyone else in that profession their career would be forever effed.

 

There is a big difference between what constitutes "gross negligence" in the court of law, and what constitutes the day to day definition of negligence

 

If this is anyone else their career would be over. This dude got years for something similar -

Mishandling classified information leads to prison (if your name isn’t Clinton) (Update) - Hot Air

 

i understand. i think it's important to contextualize it with Republican actions though, imo.

 

i'm not justifying what she did. merely saying that her not being charged is not surprising, nor is it somehow unique to her level of elitism.

 

This is not a reputable website.

 

More internet lawyers trying to make comparisons when Comey himself said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

do you think Comey is in on some grand conspiracy?

seems far more likely to me he just doesn't think there would be a conviction.

doesn't make the law right or Clinton's actions right, but the idea that Clinton is getting special treatment here (more than anyone else in the political elite) seems a bit far fetched

 

Moreover it's implying that the FBI has something to gain by going above and beyond for Clinton especially. This doesn't really rank with the grimier underbelly of politics per usual.

 

So are you saying just because someone wouldn't bring a "case" means someone isn't wrong?

You have to agree that what she did was absolutely against the rules and now she's getting a slap on the wrist (if that) for something that anyone else in the government probably would have gotten in huge trouble for.

I mean, the FBI couldn't make a "case" against the Pulse shooter both times they investigated him, doesn't mean he was innocent. I'm not saying Hillary did a crime that's a fraction as bad as that, just making the point that even if the FBI can't make a "case" doesn't mean the person in question is completely innocent.

 

I'm saying there is a difference between my personal feelings of what is right and wrong and the concept of what is wrong in the eyes of the law, and that as I am not a lawyer I choose to trust the experts assigned to this case rather than random strangers on the internet who have no real qualifications.

Also are you suggesting the FBI should've charged the Pulse shooter with something? So we should just arrest everyone who might be guilty of a crime or might do something bad later? Cause that is not a world I want to live in.

 

Don't you know? We have pre-cogs in every Law Enforcement Agency this side of the mississippi.

 

To be fair, black and brown folks are arrested for slightest infractions, and there is a critique to be made of systemic privilege, of which Clinton is representative. The reason the former is charged is because that is a component of how things function and, during her time in power, she helped to ensure this was the case. That is a better argument to me, which retains the specificity of Clinton, whilst broadening out the need to destroy systemic privileges endowed by wealth, status and race.

 

I think the FBI should have done a lot more (surveillance/watch list/etc) with the Pulse shooter based on his ties with terrorism - but that's another story.

I'm frustrated that politicians are above the law. Normal citizens get in trouble for the slightest infractions and I have no idea what this cost Hillary? Did she even have to pay a fine? I paid more for a speeding ticket than her sharing classified information on a personal server (not considered classified at the time/etc).

It's basically a popularity contest. I've hear more about this damn Trump tweet with a star than this investigation. In my opinion both candidates are unfit to be President and we're unfortunately forced to choose between them. The system is broken.

 

I originally got the implication from you that you thought Clinton specifically was getting preferential treatment. I certainly don't dispute the claims that the law is structured to benefit various groups, of which the political elite get a bulk of those benefits.

But if a law is unjust, is the proper thing to do to change the law or ignore the law?

 

I edited my post while you were responding, but I personally don't think Bernie or Trump would have escaped this.

 

If Clinton was still with the state department she'd be asked to step down and lose security clearance.

Since she resigned from that position already she can only be held responsible from a full blown trial, which the FBI investigation obviously wasn't.

 

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is a high profile individual and with her connections and her husbands connections they can call in favors that no ordinary citizen would ever have access too. Similar to a police officers child getting either a free pass or picked up by their parents instead of being booked and processed.

There are plenty of head scratching things that will never be answered. The staffer being given immunity, which means there must of been a legitimate chance of him facing felony charges, along with trying to conceal the immunity deal. The fact that Clinton deleted over 30,000 personal e-mails, which I completely believe that a majority of them are about her daughters wedding and whatnot. However, when you are using a singular e-mail for private and professional use, they all are subject to scrutiny and need to be reviewed.

Can you imagine a high profile person accused in a child abuse case potentially harboring child porn on their servers only to have them delete 30,000 files that they deemed not important or relevant to the case. No one would buy that for a second and would be grounds for further charges.

Her husband was impeached on perjury and obstruction over an incident that is extremely trivial compared to this.

 

Sure, I may not have a law degree, but I do have a brain. And it's incredibly difficult for me to read Comey's statement and not think that what he is describing would be considered "gross negligence" in just about every other situation.

 

To be fair, there are plenty of legal laymen out there who have formed better grasps on the law than a fair amount of my law school classmates. Also, it's not a very challenging concept.

 

It apparently is when people are comparing Snowden and Clinton.

 

Who is the "people" you're referring to? I don't recall Snowden even being mentioned in this thread.

 

I didn't mean to imply anyone in this thread did. Talking about in the public discourse at large, saw the comparison being drawn as if the two situations were directly comparable from swathes of reddit and facebook.

 

You know there are more people in law school right now than there are lawyers on the entire planet?

 

Tony Blair's concession on Iraq is funny, but pretty pathetic.