"I’ve stated many times over the years that I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, just as lower-tier government officials like Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were. "
You ought to read what James Stewart reported in his fact-based book "Deep State." Stewart is both a lawyer and an investigat…
"I’ve stated many times over the years that I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, just as lower-tier government officials like Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were. "
You ought to read what James Stewart reported in his fact-based book "Deep State." Stewart is both a lawyer and an investigative journalist. He is no partisan hack. In his fact-based book "Blood Sport," he reported facts that made both Clintons look amoral and possibly criminal.
Stewart reports that a team of FBI agents working on the Hillary e-mail case agreed that no prosecution was warranted. That was based on the case law respecting the statute and on the facts they had uncovered. The case law showed that there had to be some clandestine intent to walk away with classified documents without authorization. The most they could show was that Hillary's e-mails had a few documents with an encircled "c."
Sandy Berger obviously had clandestine intent. Otherwise, why would he stuff documents in his pants before leaving a secure area.? Gen. Petraeus showed highly sensitive, classified to a biographer, gave her notes on the documents and let her take pictures of them. Then he lied about it.
It's easy for laypeople and pundits with law degree to say someone should be prosecuted. But if you're the prosecutor in charge, you have a responsibility. And if you kowtow to the backseat drivers and to popular sentiment (as that NY prosecutor who got Trump indicted might have done), you and you alone must face the consequences.
Admittedly, with the national Attention Deficit Disorder and fever-pitched emotions, explaining nuances is like talking to the wind. But there must be a wall of sorts between the court of public opinion and the legal process.
Well said. What few people realize, among all the chaff, pearl-clutching, and innuendo is that:
1. Hillary did not break State Department rules, which did not prohibit use of private email. Both her predecessors, Condy Rice and Colin Powell, also used private emails (Powell used his AOL account, and told Hillary so). Her use of a private server was probably *more* secure than her predecessors.
2. Hillary did not deal with classified documents, as Trump did. Further, she and her staff carefully talked around anything they considered classified, such as drone targets. Retroactive examination by various agencies identified a number of email chains which they considered contained classified information, but we have to take that with a grain of salt. For instance, 26 of the emails were sent by a private citizen (Sidney Blumenthal) who did his own "research" and was trying to be helpful, with information which could not necessarily be verified, and which Hillary considered "journalistic". When shown many of the "classified" emails, Hillary and her staff were puzzled as to why they should be considered classified information. For instance, 6 of the *most* sensitive were summaries of press reports of drone attacks; they were considered Top Secret because in spite of drone details and attacks being widely discussed from Popular Mechanics to The New York Times, the very *existence* of drones was still classified, as far as the Defense Dept. was concerned!
3. The Inspector General's review of the investigation raised a number of procedural issues - including that certain FBI agents involved directly or periphally in the investigation *also* used private email for bureau business; that a number of agents had too-close relationships with the press and too many interactions, in some cases to the point of accepting emoluments; etc. - but they concluded that Comey's ruling not to prosecute was in fact consistent with precedent and comparable cases.
"I’ve stated many times over the years that I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, just as lower-tier government officials like Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were. "
You ought to read what James Stewart reported in his fact-based book "Deep State." Stewart is both a lawyer and an investigative journalist. He is no partisan hack. In his fact-based book "Blood Sport," he reported facts that made both Clintons look amoral and possibly criminal.
Stewart reports that a team of FBI agents working on the Hillary e-mail case agreed that no prosecution was warranted. That was based on the case law respecting the statute and on the facts they had uncovered. The case law showed that there had to be some clandestine intent to walk away with classified documents without authorization. The most they could show was that Hillary's e-mails had a few documents with an encircled "c."
Sandy Berger obviously had clandestine intent. Otherwise, why would he stuff documents in his pants before leaving a secure area.? Gen. Petraeus showed highly sensitive, classified to a biographer, gave her notes on the documents and let her take pictures of them. Then he lied about it.
It's easy for laypeople and pundits with law degree to say someone should be prosecuted. But if you're the prosecutor in charge, you have a responsibility. And if you kowtow to the backseat drivers and to popular sentiment (as that NY prosecutor who got Trump indicted might have done), you and you alone must face the consequences.
Admittedly, with the national Attention Deficit Disorder and fever-pitched emotions, explaining nuances is like talking to the wind. But there must be a wall of sorts between the court of public opinion and the legal process.
Well said. What few people realize, among all the chaff, pearl-clutching, and innuendo is that:
1. Hillary did not break State Department rules, which did not prohibit use of private email. Both her predecessors, Condy Rice and Colin Powell, also used private emails (Powell used his AOL account, and told Hillary so). Her use of a private server was probably *more* secure than her predecessors.
2. Hillary did not deal with classified documents, as Trump did. Further, she and her staff carefully talked around anything they considered classified, such as drone targets. Retroactive examination by various agencies identified a number of email chains which they considered contained classified information, but we have to take that with a grain of salt. For instance, 26 of the emails were sent by a private citizen (Sidney Blumenthal) who did his own "research" and was trying to be helpful, with information which could not necessarily be verified, and which Hillary considered "journalistic". When shown many of the "classified" emails, Hillary and her staff were puzzled as to why they should be considered classified information. For instance, 6 of the *most* sensitive were summaries of press reports of drone attacks; they were considered Top Secret because in spite of drone details and attacks being widely discussed from Popular Mechanics to The New York Times, the very *existence* of drones was still classified, as far as the Defense Dept. was concerned!
3. The Inspector General's review of the investigation raised a number of procedural issues - including that certain FBI agents involved directly or periphally in the investigation *also* used private email for bureau business; that a number of agents had too-close relationships with the press and too many interactions, in some cases to the point of accepting emoluments; etc. - but they concluded that Comey's ruling not to prosecute was in fact consistent with precedent and comparable cases.