2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNominating a Presidential Candidate Under Active FBI Investigation Is An Incredibly Risky Gamble
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/03/nominating-a-presidential-candidate-under-active-fbi-investigation-is-an-incredibly-risky-gambleNominating a Presidential Candidate Under Active FBI Investigation Is An Incredibly Risky Gamble
Unless, of course, there is some kind of separate system of justice for the powerful
by Nathan J. Robinson
The 2016 election has many bizarre aspects, but surely one of the most bizarre is the fact that one of the main presidential candidates is under active investigation by the FBI, and that this is somehow being treated as unimportant or inconsequential.
snip
Examine, for instance, the case of Bryan Nishimura, a Naval reservist who deployed during Afghanistan during 2007 and 2008. Nishimura was prosecuted when he stored classified information on unsecured devices. In its press release announcing Nishimuras plea agreement, the FBI summarized the facts as follows:
In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
See if you can find any meaningful distinction between Nishimuras conduct and Clintons. Just as with Clinton, nobody alleges that the action caused harm, or that Nishimura used it for any nefarious purposes. Just as with Clinton, nobody alleges that Nishimura disclosed or intended to disclose the information to any unauthorized person. The only issue here is that Nishimura kept classified materials on unauthorized media, precisely the same thing Clinton is alleged to have done.
The same is true in the case of John Deutch, a CIA officer whose laptops were found to contain classified material. Deutch had agreed to plead to a misdemeanor offense of mishandling classified documents when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton. And then there was the case of Wen Ho Lee, relentlessly hounded by the government and put in solitary confinement for nine months on suspicion of spying after downloading classified information, was a particularly heinous low point. And as Glenn Greenwald has documented, there are plenty of other examples to choose from:
NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJs claims that he mishandled classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such) Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.
Its strange, then, for Ruth Marcus (and the others who insist that Clintons conduct was lawful) to dwell on the differences between Clintons behavior and David Petraeuss, while failing to mention any relevant differences between Clintons case and that of Nishimura or Deutch.
Clintons own defenses havent been particularly reassuring, either. Initially, Clintons campaign insisted that none of the material sent on the unsecured server was classified: Hillary didnt send any classified materials over email: Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. Then, the Clinton campaign admitted that classified information had been sent, but insisted that the initial statement was still simultaneously true because none of the material was marked classified at the time. That defense was laughable on its face, because everyone at every level of the State Department is trained to recognize what sort of information is presumptively classified and should be handled accordingly. Of all people, the highly experienced Hillary Clinton would be the last to be oblivious to basic departmental protocol.
snip
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)[link:|
StayFrosty
(237 posts)I mean we know how good the American people react to the word socialist
At least it's not a felony.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Learn the difference.
Welcome to DU.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I think the country has left McCarthyism behind, except for Hillarians and other conservatives.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Member since: Tue May 3, 2016, 03:54 AM
Number of posts: 171
Number of posts, last 90 days: 171
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 122 posts in the last 90 days (71% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 33 posts in the last 90 days (19% of total posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)be indicted.
That simply is not how it works.
Her justice system isn't accessible to us.
PJMcK
(22,034 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)but has the FBI even confirmed there's an investigation? The only sources I've seen claim that are not reliable. It's like everyone is assuming it because the Republicans say it's true.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)"We're conducting an investigation,'' Comey said. "I'm not familiar with the term security review.''
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/11/fbi-director-comey-hillary-clinton-email/84223998/
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Hillary will be the nominee.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)the indicted nominee.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)you should put some money on that if you are so sure!
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1792/Will-a-federal-criminal-charge-be-filed-against-Hillary-Clinton-in-2016#data
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)If you seriously believe ANY wealthy, powerful, connected and In The Club 1%er would be indicted for anything short of a public mass murder then you haven't been paying attention. If anybody has a clear cut case of "affluenza", it's a Clinton.
From what little we do know, there's enough evidence of negligence to put me and (presuming you're not mega wealthy) you in prison for 10 years or so. Just having a server in our house (secure or not) would land us in prison if there was sensitive government information on that server. Two justice systems. One for us and one for them.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)not important?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... her magnetic personality and her constant and incorruptible policy positions will help her to weather this particular storm.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)"Oh, Hillary...I'll sure miss that lack of charm..."
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)As in, "It's Her Turn" we either succumb or be brought to heel.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)Or will she get a pass because she's so special?
Response to amborin (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
oasis
(49,378 posts)Your concern is duly noted.
writes3000
(4,734 posts)It's making me more committed to her this ever. And I suspect it's having the same effect on others. Congrats!
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)vetting. . . bringing out the ACTUAL short comings of the candidate, not made up distortions.
It is no one's fault but HILLARY'S for doing what she did. You can't blame it on anyone else if you are being honest about it. SHE DID IT. She put that server outside the secure government network and she signed an agreement UNDER OATH NOT to handle information that way.
So now that she broke hear oath, you want to blame everyone else for it. Well, that is a big, fat, steaming pile of fertilizer.
You saying Hillary should not be accountable for her own actions? Yea, that's real leadershp, blame everyone else.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You can go to the ignore list.
Joob
(1,065 posts)They'd be happier with Trump than Bernie. They know Trump would make deals.
But of course, they're happiest with Hillary. What I'm saying is it's not a gamble for them.
Hillary can keep people (uh well some) happy, they definitely want that.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)actually, to a point I am hoping they do. It will be job security for news producers. Though not CNN, if you get my drift.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I won't have anything to do with it. Never seen anything as dumb as nominating a unpopular candidate under active investigation. What could go wrong?
jamese777
(546 posts)Primaries' total "POPULAR" vote as of May 23rd
Hillary Clinton: 13,192,713 (55.5%)
Bernie Sanders: 10,158,889 (42.7%)
Donald Trump: 11,266,041
Clinton over Sanders: 3,033,824
Clinton over Trump: 1,926,672
Trump over Sanders: 1,057,152
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Those number won't help her in the general at all. She was/is a stupid choice. Maybe popular but still a stupid choice.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Seriously old article....almost three months...what your fox buddies not writing stuff?
PAMod
(906 posts)ancianita
(36,032 posts)deep state insider whose emails are as amplified as the other allegations of wrongdoing against her, and I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI determines that the allegations are unfounded. The reassurances people seek will be cleared up then. Because, hey, we trust the good ol' FBI, don't we.
Y'all forget that the State Department is not an arm of the 19 intelligence agencies under the Department of Homeland Security.
No one working at different levels of the the State Department knows what of all their emails will be decided as 'classified' unless the Secretary of State issues the guidelines.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)without emotional connection.
It seems that Democrats have placed party politics above the well-being of the country, which is not to be unexpected.