Because you think that he did the same thing Hillary did, and got indicted.

No, he didn't do the same thing, or even a similar thing.

And Hillary wasn't prosecuted for the same reason that Powell and Rice weren't.

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase “relating to the national defense” to require “‘intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” That’s a high bar — there’s no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States.
...........................................................................................................

Setting aside the bare language of the law, there’s also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton’s position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, “’it’s common’ that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information.” “’It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.’ People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.”

Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/

That said, I think that an investigation into who the real owner of Old Towne Media is might bring some really interesting things to light, even more so than bank fraud stemming from land deals, or something that might be found in some old tax returns.

Fortunately for that candidate, their time in the public eye is very short.

Scuba

(53,475 posts)

11. Nope.

Reply to ehrnst (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:56 PM

Jul 2016

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

13. You sound like it.

Reply to Scuba (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:58 PM

Jul 2016

The indictment fairy is dead, and is not coming back to life, no matter how hard you clap.

Take your Bernie or Bust self to another forum where you can rant about Hillary 24/7. They're out there.

Scuba

(53,475 posts)

14. As I've posted many, many times, I plan to hold my nose really, really tight and vote ...

Reply to ehrnst (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:03 PM

Jul 2016

... against Donald Trump in November.

There's no "Bernie or Bust self" despite your lame personal attack.

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

15. Your post indicates otherwise.

Reply to Scuba (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:05 PM

Jul 2016

The not so subtle attack on the Democratic candidate is not only pointless, it's just childish.

underpants

(185,031 posts)

20. Heard about Nishimura first thing on RW radio this afternoon

Reply to ehrnst (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 06:51 PM

Jul 2016

I just did a quick search on it and found the drastic differences. He purposefully copied data that was only to be seen and stored on certain computers and took it home with him. Hillary did nothing like that.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)

9. Take your right wing talking points back

Reply to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:52 PM

Jul 2016

to where they're welcomed with open arms. Pathetic.

Response to sufrommich (Reply #9)

Post removed

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)

12. It takes me two clicks

Reply to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:56 PM

Jul 2016

to find a motive.

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)

17. You had to click? I saw it right away. lol nt

Reply to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:09 PM

Jul 2016

BlueStateLib

(937 posts)

16. Not even close

Reply to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:08 PM

Jul 2016

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.