Gastonia, NC Correspondent-The email server issue is a tempest in a teapot. Just as Hillary Clinton handled items which were retroactively classified (as in “They weren’t classified at the time she sent them”), Condi Rice and Colin Powell did the same. She used very poor judgment and showed an astonishing lack of awareness as to how her actions would be perceived down the line, but I don’t think she broke any laws. If she did, then her cell needs to be big enough for several occupants.
(Note: I am not voting for Hillary. I am morally unable to vote for either major party candidate. I may, in fact, be voting for Bill and Opus again.)
As to the larger question, I think it’s already partially been answered by the way our court system is constructed and the way charges can be filed and prosecuted. For instance, when someone is shot to death, that’s not necessarily a murder. If it can be proved that the person who pulled the trigger didn’t intend to kill the person struck by the bullet, in certain circumstances the finding can be manslaughter. If you want the finer points of that, call your attorney, but that’s a rough framework.
All through our justice system, there are allowances for intent. Dick Wolf thought enough of the idea to base a “Law & Order” franchise around it. I don’t think the refusal to charge Hillary for her email misdeeds is setting any new precedent, it’s simply continuing the sort of prosecutorial discretion that’s been one of the hallmarks of our justice system since the first gavel came down.
Owatonna, MN Correspondent-The phrase “criminal intent” seems to be the key to any situation involving a government official accused of some sort of misdeed, whether criminal or merely unethical. Is it a crime to try to deflect as much blame or responsibility to someone else in order to protect and further one’s own career? Is it a crime to be careless or make an inappropriate decision in the name of personal expediency regarding a private email server? Is it a crime to use that private server and not have national security compromised to the point where real harm was done to United States citizens or property? In other words, no harm, no foul?
The answer to those rhetorical questions is probably “no,” but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that rules were broken mainly because adequate safeguards, checks, and balances were either not put in place or disregarded by those who should have been responsible for ensuring the rules were followed
Politicians by nature lie, steal, and double-cross the public as well as other politicians. They use others and trade favors for money, or power, or to further their careers. They often pretend to lead by making grand statements about nothing, or dither around the edges of an issue while pretending to take real action. To most politicians, the game of being a politician is more appealing and lucrative than trying to be a statesman and a true leader.
Hilary Clinton is just another politician with an inflated sense of entitlement. This sort of incident has happened before and is guaranteed to happen again. The real cause of this flouting of the rules is the fact that government has grabbed so much power so gradually over the decades that all politicians now feel they are above the law and can maneuver around any rules or regulations that are inconvenient or restrictive in some way. The solution is to start taking away those powers not enumerated by the US Constitution and return government officials and legislative representatives to the proper levels of influence and autonomy, which are miles below the levels of control they now enjoy.
Sheffield, Jamaica Correspondent– Am I the only one who thinks the candidates running for the White House are a bunch of miscreants? I know…I do sound harsh, but let’s be realistic, how many more complaints or charges need to be thrown Trump’s way for him to be deemed unfit for candidacy and kicked out of the race? Not to mention Hillary Clinton. Is it that the law is so blind that they failed to see that classified information was mishandled through Clinton’s private emails? Regardless of whether criminal activities weren’t intended, once the crime or law was broken, someone needs to pay, irrespective of their elevated position.
Let’s paint a scenario that absolutely even a stupid person can relate to. A man was driving merrily on his way home but accidentally kills someone. Truly, what happened was not his fault, nor did he intend to kill anyone; he only wanted to get home to his family. Would the law not charge that individual for manslaughter? That individual, who had no criminal intent, would be charged because the law was broken.
Let’s go back to Hillary. Clearly, even though she did not intend to break the law, it was done and she should be held responsible. This could devastate our legal system, as anyone with a similar case as Hillary (a lack of evidence to show criminal intent) could walk free. Where is the law in that? We don’t need that sort of precedence established.
Prescott Valley, NV Correspondent-No one should be exempt from the kinds of activities that involve possible indictment or criminal prosecution, including Hillary Clinton and her position as a former Secretary of State and a probable Democrat Candidate for the presidency. If she had access to classified, confidential and top secret files that were affiliated with emails transmitted and received, her mishandling of such information should have been sufficient enough for criminal prosecution. Her unaware, cavalier, entitled and nonchalant attitude with this data should have absolutely no bearing on her status as a former government official. Others in government and military positions of top-secret caliber responsible for similar transmissions have been fully indicted and prosecuted for their infractions.
Congressional house committee chairmen, Bob Goodlatte and Jason Chaffetz are currently on the pathway to seeking possible perjury charges through the U.S. Attorney of the Washington, D.C. District, so perhaps the political double standard for Clinton and others committing similar misdeeds may be swinging the politically correct pendulum in the opposite direction. With the FBI evidence in hand through its investigation of Clinton, perhaps the U.S. Attorney will be able to make the case of perjury against her. It appears that the contradictions between her public statements concerning the emails, statements made under oath to the Congress, and the facts determined by the FBI all point to a case of confusion and a more thorough investigation should be mounted to address the perjury charges against Clinton.
This double standard treatment of officials such as Hillary Clinton and others affiliated with the Democrat Party, particularly when they have clearly and consistently broken the law and feigned innocence or put forth simple explanations of negligence are unacceptable. From local city councils to government bureaucrats to cabinet level position holders, no official should be exempt from lawful intervention, particularly when top-secret information is being bantered around like Twitter and Facebook chat and postings. Utter disrespect for the law and the safety and security of the United States and her allies cannot be tolerated.
A dangerous precedent is set when high level officials with no clear understanding or respect of the law are allowed to simply do as they please and neglect the guidelines that govern their positions. Anyone with classified information that is mishandled and deceptively and ignorantly passed on to others should be immediately relieved of their positions, indicted, fined and imprisoned.
It seems that affiliations with the Clinton regime can go untouched, but perhaps new blood in Washington, D.C. come 2017 will change that current standard and those in violation will be prosecuted and pay the price for their crimes, then such a precedent will finally be cleared from the books and law and order will slowly return to its rightful and constitutional position in government. Time will tell as to what will finally stop the unfair madness.