Pardon Hillary
This may be the last message you expected from me, but Obama should pardon Hillary. If Obama does not, Trump should.
Look, I am a FOIA absolutist. Long before it came out that Clinton may have had top secret emails on her home server, I wanted to see her punished for her flouting of public accountability laws. Her whole home-brewed email system was a transparent attempt to evade FOIA, and consistent with her history of attempting to duck transparency (going all the way back to her abortive health care initiative she ran as First Lady). In addition, I have had it up to here with bogus non-profits that pretend to do charity work, but are in fact merely lifestyle and influence maintenance devices for their principals. I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated (though market forces may take care of that institution on their own, as it is unlikely donors will be sending much money their way now that the Clintons have no prospect of returning to power).
But the optics, and precedents involved, with a winning candidate's administration criminally prosecuting the election's loser are just terrible. Even if entirely justified, the prosecution smacks of banana republic politics. And even if it were justified, half the country would not see it that way and next time, when the parties are reversed, as sure as the sun rises in the East there will be folks looking to duplicate the prosecution in the other direction.
The rule of law is seldom helped by ignoring wrong-doing, but in this case I will make an exception.
Postscript: By the way, what could be a better political FU than having Trump pardon her? An attempted prosecution could last for years and could lead nowhere. But nothing leaves the impression of "your guilty" like a preemptive pardon (see Richard Nixon). From a political point of view Obama should pardon her just to prevent Trump from doing so and getting credit for being a healer.
John Say: I could care less whether the Clinton foundation is a good charity or a bad one (it is pretty abysmal).
Don't know. They provide lifesaving drugs for millions of people. What have you done lately?
John Say: Further the Clinton's clearly benefited - both DIRECTLY, and indirectly.
They certainly benefited indirectly, because they are seen to do good works, and they developed connections to the rich and powerful. However, there is no evidence of self-dealing.
John Say: So many of your answers take the form of "yes, .... well not really".
Our comment made a number of specific and unambiguous claims:
• There is a nexus of money and politics that can cause problems.
• Politicians spend most of their time raising money for the next campaign
• The Clintons use the tools of modern politics for what they see as a public benefit.
• The Clintons edge close to the line of what is legal.
• The constant attacks are a consequence of that strategy.
• Republicans have spent decades chasing after the Clintons.
• The U.S. has an Internet troll for president.
Bzzt, wrong.
We have very few limited justification defenses for crimes.
If you meet the required elements of the crime - you are guilty of that crime.
You may not murder people because you have good intentions. There is no such thing as a "public service killing" - as much as the world might benefit from the death of certain people.
This is a major part of what Adam's "the rule of law, not man" means.
We have one law, for all people. We define actions - conduct that are wrong - "Thou shalt not steal", not thou shalt not steal from good people - or for yourself, or for corrupt purposes.
Nuances are for our private lives.
You are free to choose not to do business with me becuase you think I am greedy.
You are not free to lock me up or otherwise use the force of government against me because of your judgement of my intentions.
Even God judges people by their actions not their intentions. Matthew 25:31–46
We criminalize conduct, not thought.
We have no thought crimes.
In the context of criminal intent the question is "do ordinary people grasp the conduct is wrong" - not "were you doing it for some good purpose ?
Someone say I voted for or support Trump ?
I expect other to hold him to be held to the same standards as Hillary and Obama - and I will hold him to my even higher standards.
The best I will say for Trump is that he is likely the lessor evil.
I hope that I turn out to be wrong.
I hope that he proves to be a better president than I expect. I had the same hopes of Bush, and Obama and I was disappointed by both.
John Say: There is no such thing as a "public service killing" - as much as the world might benefit from the death of certain people.
What? Not that it's relevant, but you've never heard of "war"? Or the "death penalty"?
John Say: You are free to choose not to do business with me becuase you think I am greedy.
Sure, and you can believe any cockamamie story about the Clinton you like, and then not vote for her. But basing decisions on truthiness may not result in the best results.
John Say: We criminalize conduct, not thought.
That's right. There's no evidence of criminal conduct. But Republicans have convinced their base that there was. And that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. And all manner of nonsense. Then they wonder why their base rebels when they don't "lock her up!" and remove Obama from office. There's a whole book on the subject.
http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/78211_5_Shelley1.jpg
"All your questions presuppose some sort of inordinate corruption, rather than just glad-handing and compromise that make up the political process. Sorry the world doesn't fit into your neat boxes."
Glad handing and compromise are not (usually) corruption.
I am addressing specific conduct.
I am asking you whether that conduct is immoral, unethical, or not. Simple question.
If you answer yes - many things follow.
One of which is that Clinton had the intent required for a criminal conviction. Because that is all criminal intent is - doing something wrong, that is ether the same as or concurrent with something illegal.
Though that is not the only reason for making that argument.
John Say: I am asking you whether that conduct is immoral, unethical, or not.
Asked and answered. The Clintons are as honest as most politicians. That means they shade the truth, change their positions for expediency, dig up dirt on their adversaries, attack their weaknesses, and all the things that make up politics. They did so because they saw the damage done by Nixon using such means, and believed that the left should wield those same tools, though within the law, to achieve what they saw as the public good.
John Say: Because that is all criminal intent is - doing something wrong, that is ether the same as or concurrent with something illegal.
The FBI determined there was insufficient evidence in the email investigation to establish intent. Indeed, if you actually read the emails, it's clear that Clinton and her team worked very hard for the benefit of the American people.
The rest is just noise.
How can you be so entirely wrong ?
First - government does actually have secure email systems - they do not go over the internet.
You seem to think that email means internet or public, or insecure.
The issue with the private server is specific to the classified documents.
Storage of classified documents outside of secure facilities is all by itself a violation of the law.
The private server issue is exactly the opposite of your claim. It is a clear violation of the handling of classified documents laws.
With respect to FOIA requests - it MIGHT be irrelevant if the material is also available as required by other federal documents laws.
No the FOIA issues has NOT been resolved by the FBI, it is not even currently in their jurisdiction.
The entire case is before a federal judge. He gets to subsequently decide whether to refer it to DOJ/FBI.
The FBI has no say until then.
I would suggest actually looking into things rather than just making them up.
You would make less unforced errors.
John Say: government does actually have secure email systems
She attempted to acquire a secure Blackberry, but they wouldn't provide her one.
John Say: Storage of classified documents outside of secure facilities is all by itself a violation of the law.
To be a violation, there has to be intent. As she thought there was no classified information involved, there was no intent.
I did not ask about "best practices".
I asked whether certain conduct was right or wrong.
I asked you for a moral and ethical judgement.
Everything that is a bad idea is not also immoral.
If something is wrong it does not matter whether is it "best practices" or not.
John Say: government does actually have secure email systems
Sure. They're closed systems. Today, secure smartphones are available which do the job, but at that time, you had to be somewhere.
Read 18 cfr 793.
Relating to national security is ONLY an element of some sections - ones with fairly draconian penalties.
BTW, Juries decide questions of fact, not law.
Again READ 18 cfr 793 some sections require intent,
Section (f) does not.
The punishment for violating 18cfr793(f) is a criminal conviction, potential jail time and fines.
Plenty of people have experienced that with far less evidence of intent than Clinton.
Including cases decided in the past 6 months.
John Say: I asked whether certain conduct was right or wrong.
You asked a series of "should" questions, such as Should public officials be allowed to conduct public business on private emails ?
The answer is no. It's not best practice, and procedures should be strengthened to prevent a recurrence. But it's actually very common, though picking up the phone is the best way to avoid a record of a conversation.
John Say: I asked you for a moral and ethical judgement.
People should always do their best, meaning best practice to the best of their ability. She did not use best practices, probably through ignorance.
No this does nto happen all the time.
I had a top secret security clearance for several years.
Had I merely refered to knowledge I had gained from classified documents in a single email I would have at the very least been fired on the spot - and that was as a government contractor. As a government employee the penalties are more draconian.
Regardless, in the specific instance of Clinton this was not once, but many times. I beleive there were atleast 3000 references to classified knowledge.
There were fewer but still actually numerous instances of actual classified documents making their way into an email or fax.
That is substantially more consequential as that can not occur by accident.
Further there are a few instances were classified content was included verbatum with classified markings removed.
That alone gets you everything needed for 18cfr793(e) - that is the section that actually requires intent.
Are you actually going to argue that you can copy classified information word for word, remove the classified markings and have done so without intent ?
Finally there is the storage of this information on a private server - that would be outside of a secure information facility - again a separate crime.
I beleive the IG found a handful of emails in Powells AOL account that contained discussions that would have been classified - the IG did nto find classified documents.
The entirety of Powells use of AOL was far smaller. Not 60K+ emails, not even thousands.
Powell conducted nearly all his government business via government accounts. Clinton conducted NONE of it that way. Further Powell's communications to Clinton make it clear that he explicitly warned her NOT to use email for classified documents.
But if you are asking - I would likely convict Powell.
Though I would need more facts, the IG report is extremely sketchy. What we know about Clinton is far from sketchy.
John Say: Again READ 18 cfr 793 some sections require intent, Section (f) does not.
And the language concerning "relating to national security" is the same language the was ruled on in Gorin v. United States, that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.”
John Say: I beleive there were atleast 3000 references to classified knowledge.
About 2000, most of ambiguous sensitivity.
John Say: Further there are a few instances were classified content was included verbatum with classified markings removed.
Do you have specifics?
John Say: I beleive the IG found a handful of emails in Powells AOL account
There would have been a whole lot more, but they weren't archives or preserved.
Aides to Condoleezza Rice also had classified information on their personal email accounts. So yes, it does happen more than you might think.
John Say: So many of your answers take the form of "yes, .... well not really".
Our comment made a number of specific and unambiguous claims:
• There is a nexus of money and politics that can cause problems.
• Politicians spend most of their time raising money for the next campaign
• The Clintons use the tools of modern politics for what they see as a public benefit.
• The Clintons edge close to the line of what is legal.
• The constant attacks are a consequence of that strategy.
• Republicans have spent decades chasing after the Clintons.
• The U.S. has an Internet troll for president.
• The Clintons still seem committed to the public good.
There are so many instances where less egregious actions have resulted in criminal convictions.
We have focussed on 18 cfr 793, but here is a summary that covers myriads of other laws that would also be applicable.
One thing to note is that Clinton provided Blumenthal with classified information which he then used for his own profit.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33502.pdf
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ABA-Leak-Prosecution-Chapter.pdf
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=wmlr
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403795.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/politics/pentagon-analyst-gets-12-years-for-disclosing-data.html
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2016/09/morison-pardon/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/leaks-and-the-law-the-story-of-thomas-drake-14796786/?no-ist
https://theintercept.com/2015/06/18/jeffrey-sterling-took-on-the-cia-and-lost-everything/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/former-cia-officer-released-after-nearly-two-years-in-prison-for-leak-case.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/04/ex-navy-lingust-pleads-guilty-in-secret-documents-case-187436
Of course I can not prove intent to your satisfaction - because you are requiring intent where the law does not, and defining intent contrary to accepted standards.
I have provided links to a number of cases.
As well as scholarly law review articles on the subject.
I would note that though 793(f) has no "intent"
requirement, the legal analysis of 793(e) and other more egregious sections has been that the mere transmission or mishandling of an identified of marked document constitutes "intent".
Basically if the law says you may not transmit, store, or know of the improper transmission and storage of - some list of classified items, the fact that you mishandled such an item is ALONE sufficient to prove intent.
Essentially there are few prosecutions under 793(f) because any document that meets the requirments of 793(f), also falls under 793(e), and because specific classes of documents and information are identified by the law, the mere mishandling of that document presume intent.
Your entire Gorin argument applies only to more serious infractions where the law requires ethier actual harm or potential harm to the US.
Basically we will send you to jail for up to 10 years for mishandling classified documents,
But we will not do so for 30 years unless you knew that the mishandling would be harmful to the US.
Again ignorance of the facts.
The blowup with NSA was fairly well publicized, and went all the way to Obama.
While I would beg to differ that it is an example of someone with limited computer skills trying to make it work.
That argument is irrelevant.
As even if you are correct - you have given me "intent".
"Trying to make it work" while violating the law, is intent.
Clinton's conflicts with NSA deny her any claim to ignorance of security issues.
NSA did not tell her NO because they did not like her.
They told her NO because what she wanted violated the law. "Trying to make it work" is the same as "knowingly violating the law" - particularly when you have already been told you can't
Ah - see the actual words matter - you could not get a perjury conviction based on this.
HURD is refering to Comey's public statement.
But Comey does not repeat it in his testimony.
Only HURD says the decisions was unanimous.
Comey's testimony implies that the decision was unamious. But he does not actually state that.
I still have problems with his testimony and it is clear from what we have subsequently learned that it is not even close to true, that it is probable that not a single investigating agent supported the decision.
In perjury or sworn falsification charges the exact words are important.
There is much in Clinton's testimony as an example that is atleast as false as Comey's remarks here - but those are unprosecutable.
Perjury or sworn falsification convictions require clear and specific assertions. Hence the fight in the Bill Clinton perjury claim "that it dependes on what the meaning of "is" is"
I forget the exact instances that meet those more rigid requirements - Clinton's congressional testimony on here email is generally end to end false. But there were two statements that had the necescary specificity for a perjury charge. The same is true of her responses to discovery and admissions in the FOIA cases, but there there was one instance where a specific statement was unequivically and knowingly false.
Abedin likely has the same problem with regard to the Weiner laptop - as she swore that she had turned over all devices that might have ever had her emails on them.
Though there is a potential issue as there is a claim that Abedins emails ended up on Weiners laptop because she backed something else up to it and the emails ended up also backed up without her knowledge.
Again we are short on details. Regardless, if she actually used that laptop - which she did, and she used it for email, then she committed perjury.
Generally perjury is extremely hard to prove because of the degree of specificity and knowledge that is required.
That is why obstruction of justice or lying to the FBI are more common charges. And why they demonstrate how badly the FBI botched the investigation.
People are and have come to their own conclusions.
The results of this election are atleast in part a reflection of that.
I doubt that those who voted against Clinton examined in detail what 18cfr793(f) said or the precise words of Clinton and her people's statements or the details of her server or ....
But alot of people decided that her conduct was both wrong and not excusable.
If you have actually followed this - and given that you raised the Gorin defense, clearly you have followed this in some places, then you are or should be familiar with all the support that you are demanding from me.
It is not my job to feed back to you what you either already know - or should know given how strongly you are arguing otherwise.
Regardless, I need not quote the language of the code and all the assorted cases and interpretations in every post I make.
All of this is out there.
The assertions are made throughout the media,
The alleged facts are out there with enough information for us to weigh their credibility.
Honestly even the Wikileaks posts of Podesta emails are daming. While they only rarely address the classified information, they make repeated references to the fact that Clinton was going to do whatever she damned well pleased her way, and anyone interfering would be in deep shit.
Again that is sufficient "intent" for some of the more serious sections of 18 cfr 793.
Yes, I keep track of everyone convicted of violating 18cfr793(f) by name date, sentence and all material facts.
Some other cases
Sandy Berger,
Peter Van Buren
John Deutch,
Petreus.
Bryan Nishimura
Kristian Saucier
Maj. Jason Brezler
Jessica Lynn Quintana
Donald Willis Keyser
Thomas Drake
Most of these are quite recent - as this administration has engaged in more vigorous prosecutions than all other administrations prior.
"I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.”
Hillary Clinton.
“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets, It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.” Comey in prosecuting Sandy Berger.
BTW Clinton actually emailed Classified Documents to Berger via her home email system.
Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman General James E. Cartwright
No actually it is not.
The "relating to national defence" language is not present in 18cfr793(f) or several other sections of 18cfr793
Again read the case and read the law itself.
This is a long ago resolved issue.
Tes, it is really common for heavy hitters like Clinton who have no other viable defense to trott out something antique that is no longer applicable, or not applicable to the case in question, and sell to the press and the faithful.
Frankly she even got Comey to buy it. But my real guess is that Comey is more like Wilson at the constitutional convention.
It was easier to hope that she lost the election than to recomend prosecution and be directly responsible for her losing it.
I think his game playing reflects that. But then I am guessing at his intentions.
And you are back to trying to decide what is in the hearts and minds of others.
Typical of the left.
Those they oppose are hateful hating haters.
And the evidence - much of the time it is merely a disagreement on policies and principles.
If you think all lives matter - you are a racist. If you think that a man with a vile mouth and inappropriate hands is a better choice for president that a women who is an incompetent criminal - then you are mysoginist.
If you think that it is not acceptable that woment must use the womens room, and men must use the mens room, but people who claim to be TG can use either and that might lead to perverts claiming to be TG - then you are a homophobe.
If you think that we can not have both open borders and a broad system of government entitlements - then you are racist.
If you are willing to note that pretty much all the terrorists in the world today are muslim - then you are an islamophobe.
When you call half the people of the country hateful hating haters, you should expect them are going to vote against you.
Still infested with mice, I see.
It is not offering a bribe that should be a crime - it is accepting it that corrupts government.
Regardless, you are under the delusion that you can micromanage government, the law, people and get precisely the outcome you want.
Government is force. It is a blunt instrament. It is unsuitable for fine tuning anything - much less peoples conduct.
Bzzt, wrong.
The rule of law does NOT mean some conduct deserves prison if it is motivated by love of money, but the same conduct is acceptable if it can be argued to be for the greater good.
Wow.Clinton was involved in CHIP.
And how exactly has that made the world a better place ?
Again more left pablum.
Insurance - ALL insurance, is about the protection of wealth.
That is why universal health insurance is stupid and why PPACA has failed to get the poor to sign up for insurance.
Insurance makes zero sense if you have no wealth to protect.
This is why PPACA is in a death spiral. It sought to force "the young invincibles" to get insured because the money from their health insurance would subsize others.
The fact is PPACA has done NOTHING to improve the actual health of anyone.
The relationship of Insurance to health and outcomes has been studied by the insurance industry for decades.
And the insurance industry is desparate to prove that health insurance improves health.
But they have repeatedly failed to be able to do so - because it does not.
Auto insurance does nto prevent accidents.
Flood insurance does nto prevent floods,
Fire insurance does not prevent fires.
Insurance protects wealth that is all.
If you have wealth that you need to protect - it is a good deal. If you do not - it is not.
So I am not even slightly impressed because Clinton has done something stupid regarding children's health insurance.
As I am unimpressed that CF has spent a small fortune to have ZERO impact on aides related trends in Africa. or another small fortune to be able to say "me too" with respect to having accomplished nothing in Haiti.
Now so long as CF is private and not tied in to government - I do not give a dam.
As I said before if Saudi princes wish to Give CF or Hillary personally millions to burn in their fireplace - I do not care.
Whether CF is a good charity or a bad one is the business of those who contribute to it.
Not mine - until they start selling access to government.
We are not equal. Life is not fair - get over it.
It is not governments job, and outside of governments ability to change that.
Every political movement fixated on equality from atleast the French Revolution has resulted in rivers of blood and ended in failure.
We are not equally smart.
We are not equally talented,
we are not equally handsome
we are not equally athletic,
.....
We are not equal PERIOD
We can not be made equal - and if we were smart we would not want to be.
How would the world work if everyone was garbage collectors - or no one was ?
Government is obligated to treat us equally - even though we are not. That requirement dictates that government must limit itself to the few legitimate uses of force - as everything else we can do for ourselves.
If you as an example think CHIP is such an excellent idea - impliment it voluntarily - without government.
If you can't - that would be because it is not a good idea.
Often bad ideas help - like CHIP and PPACA help some people - it is actually quite hard to spend 25% of the welth of the nation without some positive results. But NET positive is entirely different.
According to Robert Barro - the Ideas Respec 4th ranked economist in the world and an expert on the issue - no government programs of any kind anywhere ever have exceeded a .8 economic multiplier that means for ever $ spent .20 of NET economic loss occurs.
The norm is between .25-.35
In other words most government programs do .65-.75 in harm for ever $ spent.
That influence is not yours. The power of govenrment is either rented or stolen from the people.
Legitimately or not, it is theirs not yours.
To the greatest extent possible all power should be returned to the people. Not used by elites for their stupid idea of some common good, but returned to the individuals from which it came and used by them for what they beleive is their own good.
That is what liberty means.
Making your own choices with your own life. It means succeeding - and it sometimes means failing.
The left seems to think that failure is unacceptable - but that is how most of us learn.
Regardless, government power is not a tool to be expanded at whim and used for whatever good purpose you can concoct.
As Acton noted Power corrupts.
As Tolkien notes - there is no good use of power over others.
No one is so good their can wield power over the lives of others.
I had thought the left learned that 200 years ago when we abolished slavery. Or 75 years ago when we ended Jim Crow.
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
"They provide lifesaving drugs for millions of people."
Bzzt, wrong.
Look at the aides trendlines in the world or Africa. There is no evidence at all that anything that CF has done has altered long term trends even a little.
Typical left nonsense - we spent money, therefore something good must have happened.
Again you fixate on intentions.
What have I done ?
I have bought, cooked, delivered and served atleast 1000 meals to the homeless this year.
What have you done ?
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
Matt:6
This bible quoting is fun - glad you started it.
There are few instances in which the use of force is justified.
The defense of self and the defense of others.
I do not support the death penalty.
Most of the wars we get ourselves into are not just.
What I "beleive" regarding Clinton is those facts established from credible sources.
Those facts establish that she broke the law. That her CONDUCT, that her ACTIONS violated the law.
If you do not like the law as written - change it.
All those people who were prosecuted for similars acts to Clintons would appreciate that.
Regardless, there is also compelling evidence that she was aware of the law she was breaking - but given you are unlikely to accept that - she SHOULD have been aware of the law she was breaking.
That is what negligence and recklessness mean.
Interested in actual truth.
Not the comedic version.
Regardless, using the same standards you apply to allegations about Clinton - Trump is a saint.
There is far more substance to allegations against clinton.
But again - the left is incapable of critical thought.
One of the reasons we judge acts not intent - is it is always arguable that "our side" has good intentions - but yours has bad.
The Nazi's had good intentions - by their definitions.
Everything is not fungible or relative - otherwise the Nazi's were moral.
A significant portion of the record of Clintons communications as Secretary fo state was removed from the control of the government - that was deliberate conduct.
And it was morally and legally wrong.
Separately, classified documents, records, and communications were removed from secure facilities, transmitted over insecure channels. stored outside of secure facilities, and provided to people not authorized to have them.
That is CONDUCT.
It is morally and legally wrong.
Nor do very many people disagree that those things occured.
We are not debating what Clinton's conduct was.
We are not debating what conduct the law criminalizes.
All you are debating is what Clinton;s intentions were - in a law that does not require intention.
While I was listening to Comey's conference and he stated that Clinton had negligently and recklessly handled clasified materials - that was the end.
That is the language right out of 18cfr793(f) and very nearly the language in 18cfr793(e).
(f) does not require intent, and (e) merely requires that the act is deliberate - not that it was knowingly criminal, or with the intent to harm the US.
Asked - but still un answered.
I did not ask what the Clinton's relative political morality score is - though I would argue they are far less honest than most politicians, and that is an absymal standard.
Further not only did this nonsense not start with Nixon, but frankly he was an amateur as compared to Johnson - who was far from the first.
Regardless, so long as you tolerate misconduct in politics you will get misconduct in politics.
Further if the lefts position is "the ends justifies the means"
Which is exactly what "we will use the same tools as Nixon" means. Then you have lost your way. You have no moral ground to stand on.
But that should not surprise anyone. Progressivism is inherently immoral.
It should not surprise anyone that the left is corrupt.
Actually no - Comey determined that there was insufficient intent - for a crime that did not require intent, where sufficient intent was obviously present.
Comey excercised prosecutorial discretion - that is NOT the same as a determination of innocence.
While I have problems with what he did, you are making it into far more than it was.
There is no
"we worked very hard to benefit the american people" justification for criminal conduct.
Nor do I accept that characterization.
One of the other reasons that I would have aggressively prosecuted Clinton
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
When you lie about an event for personal gain, and then set someone else up as a scapegoat and then prosecute and jail them for the crime of being your scape goat,
then no I have no sympathy for you or your "intentions" or purported good deeds.
She did attempt to acquire a secure black berry - and that is evidence that she understood what was involved.
Of course there is only one in existance - that one Obama has
There is no "right" as sec state to a "secure blackberry" and in fact there really is no such thing.
Even the Obama one is not actually secure - but the classified documents laws do not apply to the president do NSA really had no choice but to give Obama what he wanted.
They had a choice with Clinton - they said no. She brought it to the president - he said not.
When you are told repeatedly NO, and then you do something anyway - that is called INTENT - Consciousness of Guilt. It is also reckless and childish.
It is all the things you accuse Trump of.
There is no "I am Sec State, I can do whatever the F I please" exception to the law.
We have repeatedly been through the intent thing.
Contrary to your claims - intent is NOT an element of 18cfr793(f).
Further as noted above in an entirely different way using your own facts regarding the blackberry - intent is proven.
And were back on this "did not know that stuff was classified" crap again.
She ASKED to have classified documents faxed to her at home.
Many of these documents were MARKED Clasified.
Many were copied verbatum by her - or her staff at her direction from classified sources.
Even accepting your ludicrous argument - SOMEONE at the sate department KNEW this were classified - why has no one been charged or convicted ?
You are in the tank. You are incapable of critical thinking.
If you can not grasp this - why should anyone trust you with government or anything else. ?
Bzzt, wrong.
NSA gets to decide what does the job fine - not Clinton.
There are legitimate uses for encrypted communications devices in communications over insecure networks.
The transmission of classified documents is not one of those.
Whether you or Clinton like it or not, a lot of thought goes into the transmission of classified information.
In addition to holding a top secret clearance for several years, at another time I worked with very sophisticated Cryptographic devices - mostly in Decryption not encryption - for the FBI.
The secure transmission of documents over insecure networks to the standards that government sets is not possible. Frankly even the secure transmission of voice communications is harder to impossible to day to the standards governemtn sets - over public insecure networks.
If you can capture a communication, you can decrypt it. It is merely a matter of time.
Even if you can not decrypt it with technology today - you will be able to in the future.
Most military communications need to be ABSOLUTELY secure from real time or near real time decryption.
That is actually fairly easy.
While diplomatic communications need to be secure for DECADES - that is extremely hard - actually impossible.
Yes, I asked YOU whether you believed those actions are MORAL or not.
Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
I did not ask you about best practice. I asked you about right and wrong.
Best practices is good vs. better.
If conduct is immoral - it is wrong - whether it is legal or not.
If you accept that something is immoral - then you have also accepted that doing it is wrong - and is either intentionally so or recklessly so.