"One of the cops under my command is a young Asian officer"

Billy_T wrote:

The law being for we and not for she sealed the victory for Trump.

Well if you’re talking about the emails and the private server, we wouldn’t be in any kind of trouble at all. Private citizens wouldn’t be hauled before Congress for umpteen hours, the subject of GOP witch-hunts, or investigated by the FBI for what she did. If she had been a private citizen and had done the same exact thing, no one would care.

In the case of emails and private servers and such, government employees are actually held to much, much tougher rules and regs than we are. So, you have it backwards.

Now, if you’re talking about other things — her war record, her use of the State Department to bust up non-profit, public sectors (the Commons) overseas for our capitalists, her complicity with the expansion of the surveillance state and so on . . . that’s a different story. But the private email server? That’s a classic nothing burger.

Though it does point to a certain arrogance, a sense of entitlement, a tech stupidity and poor judgment that doesn’t speak well of her. But nothing she did would have been remotely subject to indictment or investigation if she had been a private citizen doing the same thing.

I can’t stand either candidate. And, frankly, I can’t for the life of me understand why you would want Trump to be the president. Neither Clinton nor Trump should be anywhere near the White House. Ever.

Government employees not in military service are private citizens. Same for contractors and subcontractors to the federal government. The numerous laws Hildabeast broke most certainly do apply to those private citizens. Comey ended his infamous speech by threatening other employees not to expect to get away with what Hildabeast did.

Its clear to me you do not know the first thing about this topic. You seem to be equating these employees with members of the press or the butcher shop owner or w’s infamous dry cleaner. Don’t.

Billy_T wrote:

Government employees not in military service are private citizens. Same for contractors and subcontractors to the federal government. The numerous laws Hildabeast broke most certainly do apply to those private citizens. Comey ended his infamous speech by threatening other employees not to expect to get away with what Hildabeast did.

Its clear to me you do not know the first thing about this topic. You seem to be equating these employees with members of the press or the butcher shop owner or w’s infamous dry cleaner. Don’t.

We’ve been through this before. Yes, I know the topic, very, very well, and stop with the personal shots.

When I say “private citizens,” I’m not talking about government employees, at all. Any of them, in any capacity. I’m referring to workers outside the government, in the private sector. No one outside government would be subjected to what Clinton faced, if they had done the same, exact thing.

And Comey said she didn’t break any laws, in this case. He would have indicted her if she had.

If you want to discuss what she did in other realms, like wars, the surveillance state, economic imperialism and so on, that’s more than fine. Very few right-wingers will go there, because they tend to approve of the above, and they also likely know their own party is at least equally complicit.

The email server thing is nothing more than a faux-scandal, a tempest in a teacup, dredged up out of nothing to avoid the really tough investigations that would expose both parties.

No you don’t know the first thing about this. Those private citizens entrusted with government secrets are subject to the law. To argue that there is any equivalency with non government secrets is ridiculous. Truly ridiculous.

Billy and bnw, enjoying the exchange.

One thing, Billy that you got wrong. Comedy did NOT state that Hillary didn’t break the law. If you listened carefully, he articulated almost word for word 18 USC 793 (f) and made what would have been the strongest case ever brought under that statute…which would have made it…two.

We simply don’t have a history of prosecuting negligence and so the career politicians didn’t want to own an election based on setting a precedent. What’s complete bullshit is that Recently, an ambassador was relieved from his post for having a private email server and the State Department used 18 USC 793 (f) as the citation to remove him. The Secretary of State at the time was Hillary Clinton. And if anyone thinks the removal of an ambassador happens without the SoS being involved… No.

James Comey saying what he said was the status quo circling the wagons against Trump and Sanders. They know they are getting a sellout career politician in Clinton and is as deeply rooted in the status quo as anyone. Both other candidates want to create change (very different kinds of change, but still)

Don’t be misled into thinking this is in any way an endorsement of Trump, but Comey punted this one. You can’t say there is not enough to indict because there is no intent when the statute in question specifically doesn’t require intent. The moment he said the word, intent, I knew exactly what he was doing.

His sober analysis is likely that Trump is too dangerous and Sanders is too much an unknown. So punt and let the chips fall where they may.

That doesn’t mean she didn’t commit the crime. She most certainly did. It just means that those who would prosecute her have a vested interest in not prosecuting her.