Sailor with the same crime

It's my understanding that the sailor admitted knowing that he was taking photographs of classified equipment.

Clinton (whether you believe her or not) was not really in the same situation. What she did with her emails was very, very reckless, but she never admitted to sending any classified information knowingly. She should have known not to send sensitive materials that were retroactively classified, but it's not quite apples-to-apples here.

What Clinton's email scandal indicates is an exercise in very, very bad judgment, but criminal intent is not clear, and she has a plausible argument that she didn't send anything that was classified at the time.

The sailor intentionally broke regulations to photograph classified equipment. That's very, very bad judgment, but it is also a clear-cut violation of the law accompanied by criminal intent.

 

Not that Hillary's crimes aren't worse, but - 2 wrongs don't make a right - basic logic and critical thinking skills 101, - and fallaciously arguing for leniency because of her actions sets a dangerous standard which could lead down a road of excuses and a lack of seriousness for others who would jeopardize our national security. Really poor reasoning that perhaps may have added to his sentence...he should have stopped at admitting his guilt, foolishness and youth...

 

She never admitted. And you believe her --huh?
.

Retroactively? She occupied the office of Secretary of state. All the information on her multiple servers should have been considered classified until determined otherwise.

Her continual line about "nothing was marked classified" is pure rubbish. It's childish to the core.

Ignorance is no acceptable excuse. And I addressed "classified at the time" earlier..

 

I'm not saying I believe her. I'm saying the sailor admitted guilt, and she didn't.

She consistently made the case that she didn't knowingly do anything wrong. Did she? Of course. The issue is that there is a MASSIVE legal difference between admitting guilt and proclaiming innocence. You don't have to prove guilt with a confession.

 

That (admitting) is plus in my book.

As far as jeopardizing our national security I would consider the situation even worse.

That (lie and lack of integrity) should and would add to her punishment in my book.

An exact comparison makes no difference to the issue of jeopardizing national security and not following the rules that are clearly spelled out and this apples-to-apples argument has about as much merit as the sailor's, which is none.

The ONLY reason criminal intent is not clear is because of her denial,destroying evidence and forcing that intent to be proved by a DOJ organization not willing to do so. Such does absolutely nothing to prop her up as more upright and less deserving of consequences. She has a "plausible argument" my eye!! You seriously believe that??? What the HECK was doing in all that time she was Secretary of State that in all her emails being channeled through her private email none were classified??? Give me a break!

Here is main difference and the bottom line concerning a leading factor of who is more worthy of being punished more harshly and who should be considered for leniency, he admitted his guilt, she didn't, in fact she lied through her teeth.

 

Listen, everyone. Clinton is guilty as sin on the email issue. But to prosecute her would be infinitely more difficult than prosecuting a person who submits a valid confession. A valid confession has a 100% conviction rate. The rest you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe that's possible. But the reality is that outside of conservative land, the waters are muddied, and that's my point.

Again, Hillary IS GUILTY.

 

If the hearing was just she probably would be found at fault.
No one can handle classified information without being educated to know what to do with it.

Out of 30,000 documents "lost/Disappeared" and not ONE was classified!?

Summation of the Al Capon trial:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/capone/finktranscript.html


HankD

 

Y'all keep forgetting the point: secretary of state is NOT Ms. Clinton's first rodeo with classified information. It is NOT her first rodeo with privileged information. She's been in the arena of classified and privileged information for decades.

So to accept her statement that she didn't know the information was classified, or even sensitive, and this shouldn't be on a private email server ... and to try to pass it off as "Colin Powell told me I could" ....

The sailor knew, and admitted guilt. He's an idiot.

Anyone who thinks Hillary didn't know, is entrusting our country to an idiot of epic proportions.

 

The issue is not whether she was lying (She almost certainly was.) or whether she was being shady (She absolutely was.).

It's whether the case of the sailor aligned or not. It didn't because he admitted guilt, and she didn't. Both can be 100% guilty, but prosecution is waaaaay harder for someone who claims innocence, even speciously.

 

She is a liar and the daughter of the father of it.

 

Says who, the DOJ?

 

Seriously? A valid confession is a 100% guaranteed conviction.

It's impossible to guarantee a conviction in front of a jury, regardless of the evidence. It's a prosecutor's dream to have a valid confession.

That doesn't mean Clinton couldn't be prosecuted. There's a strong argument that she should be prosecuted, but it's not as easy as it would be if she said under oath, "I violated the law and did XY&Z. I am guilty of ABC crimes."

My point has NEVER been that Clinton deserved to get off. She didn't. It's only that from a prosecutorial standpoint, the valid confession is the gold medal you wish you had in every case.

From a defendant's standpoint, once you make a valid confession, you're toast, apart from a possible plea bargain (if the judge accepts).

I understand we are dealing with a military court, so that's another factor.

 

Indeed.

 

What's got you scratching your head, Ben?