It's official; the rule of law does not apply to corrupt politicians.

[bhsmte]

It was not for adultery but lying under oath for an alleged sexual harassment claimed by Paula Jones. However, entirely understandable why people still think he was impeached for adultery. That was the Clinton crime family Psyop campaign and helped by the media.

The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

If adultery was cause for impeachment, a whole bunch of our presidents would have been launched.

 

[redleghunter]

Comey said Tuesday that all decisions to prosecute cases rest with a prosecutor's office, and would have to involve "some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an effort to obstruct justice.

But, he said to be clear, the findings are not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person engaged in such activity would face no consequences, Comey said.
source

Destruction of evidence no longer constitutes obstruction of justice, apparently.
Intentionally setting up an illegal personal server to handle all emails including those which are classified doesn't show intent, apparently.
A person who is NOT named Clinton might have faced criminal charges for the same thing? That's equal protection under the law these days???

It's the kind of 'intent' a court and jury of peers should determine. Not a government employee.

 

[Vylo]

Indeed. As I shared on a related thread:

I had a fellow LTC who served with me. He accidentally sent SECRET NOFORN (no foreign disclosure) to an allied section in Afghanistan. He realized his error, went to the allied fax in time to receive the data, purged the fax cache on both sides but still was officially reprimanded in writing; security clearance revoked; sent back home to the States in disgrace and issued a relief for cause evaluation report. They let him retire, but he will never get that clearance back and his job opportunities limited.

That is what happened to an officer with a stellar record, over 25 years in the Army who indeed made a mistake which investigators said did not compromise the NOFORN information. CID even opened an espionage investigation (he was cleared of that) as STANDARD procedure given the nature of the information involved and who was at the receiving end.
None of the above even a recommendation for Clinton, Hillary. At the MINIMUM she should have her security clearance revoked and not reissued. She has demonstrated she cannot safeguard classified information and should never be in a position handling highly sensitive information ever again.

do remember that military and civilian standards are different.

hillary should still be charged IMO, but you have to compare it to other civilian cases

 

[AirPo]

Present the findings and let a grand jury decide. Problem with that?

So did it or did it not go before a grand jury?

 

[redleghunter]

If adultery was cause for impeachment, a whole bunch of our presidents would have been launched.

Yet Bill Clinton was not impeached for adultery. I thought what I posted and linked made that quite clear.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In other words he cut and ran.

No, he saved himself and the country an embarassment.

 

[AirPo]

It's the kind of 'intent' a court and jury of peers should determine. Not a government employee.

Isn't that up to a government employee to decide?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So did it or did it not go before a grand jury?

It did not....which you already know.....A grand jury may have come to a different conclusion....

 

[AirPo]

No, he saved himself and the country an embarassment.

As if the POTUS deciding to cut and run is not an embarassment!

 

[bhsmte]

A grand jury is not a resonable prosecutor.

Correct.

Prosecuters can easily manipulate grand jurys though, hence the old phrase; you could indict a ham sandwhich with a grand jury. Kinda like what happened with the baltimore police officers.

 

[AirPo]

It did not....which you already know.....A grand jury may have come to a different conclusion....

So I wonder why didn't some reasonable prosecutor decide on a grand jury?

 

[bhsmte]

It did not....which you already know.....A grand jury may have come to a different conclusion....

More times than not, grand juries come to the conclusion the prosecuter wants them to.

 

[KWCrazy]

Make sure you read what you just posted. It seems to go against your other posts which seem to indicate that the Clintons or Democrats are specifically corrupt, and your beloved Republican establishment figures are cut from a different cloth.

I never said Republicans are guiltless. If anything, they are gutless. They care more about re-election than they do about stopping the radical liberal agenda.

 

[KWCrazy]

In other words he cut and ran.

The Republican Party said they would not support him. At that time, there were still politicians who cared about the rule of law.

 

[AirPo]

Correct.

Prosecuters can easily manipulate grand jurys though, hence the old phrase; you could indict a ham sandwhich with a grand jury. Kinda like what happened with the baltimore police officers.

And with the evidence against Hillary and $5, you could buy a ham sandwich.

 

[AirPo]

The Republican Party said they would not support him. At that time, there were still politicians who cared about the rule of law.

Obviously not the Nixon administration.

 

[civilwarbuff]

So I wonder why didn't some reasonable prosecutor decide on a grand jury?

Go find a reasonable prosecutor and lets find out......

 

[KWCrazy]

Present the findings and let a grand jury decide. Problem with that?

The State Department said Friday 18 emails exchanged between Hillary Clinton and President Obama – that were sent through Clinton’s private server and did not contain classified information – would not be made public because of the traditional practice of saving presidential communications for the future. source

Obama knew the law. He violated it as well. He knew that official communication on a private server was illegal.

 

[redleghunter]

do remember that military and civilian standards are different.

hillary should still be charged IMO, but you have to compare it to other civilian cases

You mean like civilian government employees and contractors? They get fired at a minimum. Secondly, they have their security clearance revoked.

An example of 'no intent' is if for example you send me a classified document on an unclassified email account, and I forward the message without checking the attachment. That alone got an employee where I work fired. He also had his security clearance revoked and is currently (taking over 2 years) appealing to get it back. The company had recourse for the firing given all personnel (military, government and contractor) must sit through twice a year security and espionage training. Sign the roster that they received the training and given a certificate of completion. To think, I gave you an example of something 'innocent' enough anyone could fall victim to it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Obviously not the Nixon administration.

Not in the cabinet, because they are political appointees, not elected.