Out of curiosity, who has committed the same "crimes" as her and got punished?
English
-
These guys, for starters
-
She did not steal or share classified information.
-
James Comey says otherwise. He testified today stating that her email practices put America's secrets at risk. He said that her claims stating that "nothing sent or received was marked classified" are not true.
-
I get it. I think she's an a-hole too but it's over. Harping on this isn't gonna help. I'm sure her lawyers have/will find loopholes so it wouldn't matter if they decided to prosecute. Its like Benghazi. Republicans wasted two years and seven million dollars trying to make something stick and to what end?
-
I also get it. Certain people are above the law.
-
That is true. Mostly people with money. There are examples in the news everyday.
-
Edited by LibertarianCajun: 7/7/2016 4:39:36 AMDavid Petraeus http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/david-petraeus-sentencing/ I heard Bill Clinton also pardoned someone for doing the same on his last day as president after he was punished.
-
That is different. Patreus shared classified information with people he shouldn't have. Clinton didn't. She may have mishandled it, but she never shared classified information with anyone.
-
She shared classified information with her attorneys who were not cleared to view them.
-
Not really, she may not have explicitly shared it with anyone, but she put it in a position where it was likely hacked by foreign nations. This alone is an act of negligence, and should be treated as such.
-
The us secured servers is a joke, Isis hacked into them and posted pictures of high class generals homes. Gmail is just as safe lmao
-
Last I heard, it was a private server, not a US secured one.
-
The generals were hacked on a secured one
-
...ok? I don't see how that's relevant.
-
She didn't put the emails at any increased risk
-
I'm sorry, but I'm sure that it's harder to hack the government than gmail. It's possible to, but much harder.
-
Loool look it up, it will surprise you, unless they recently buffed it. Look for articles around 2012
-
Yeah, articles from 2012 are so reliable for 2016.
-
The case is about events that took place in 2012
-
If it happened in 2012 I'm 99% sure they would have buffed their security a bit, don't you think?
-
This entire case happened in 2012, the state of security for their systems in 2012 is the only time stamp that matters when judging it
-
...ok?
-
"Putting in a position" isn't a crime. There is potential for crime in a lot of decisions people make every day. Now if she was hacked and the information was proven to have gotten out, that would be justification for charging her with negligence. And negligence still isn't the same a willfully sharing.
-
Title 18 U.S Code 793. Guilty of gross negligence. The FBI even said that while there wasn't evidence of a hack it was in a position where it could have been
-
Uh, yes it is, she was careless with top secret information. That. Is. A. Crime.