quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Petraus did far worse than HRC, shared over 300 documents of classified secrets with his mistress, and got off with only a misdemeanor and a fine. I think even if HRC received a punishment similar to P's she'd be able to weather any political storm set against her, so this whole debate is not going to affect the outcome of the Presidential race one iota.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Petraus did far worse than HRC, shared over 300 documents of classified secrets with his mistress, and got off with only a misdemeanor and a fine. I think even if HRC received a punishment similar to P's she'd be able to weather any political storm set against her, so this whole debate is not going to affect the outcome of the Presidential race one iota.

Of course it won't, but it gives the Republicans (and Republican voting "independents") in here something to piss and moan and throw tantrums about, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It does make her VP pick an important one.

Yes it does. Now the question is will she pick one based on who will do the best job and compliment her abilities or will she go for the one who will get her the most votes.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/02/campaign-running-mates-vetting/86640198/

"Clinton has said she wants a running mate who is well-prepared to become president. But Democrats say she’s also giving priority to diversity and has been weighing women, Hispanic and black candidates — a nod to the voting blocs Democrats need to win in presidential elections."

That has to be the most honest thing I have heard the democrats say in a while.

She will pick the one who will get her the most votes, and they will be hailed as the best person for the job, and that the fact they will get the most votes proves how qualified to be president.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.

The only one prosecuted, tried, convicted and served time for the Abu Garab torture of prisoners, was the guy...who exposed it.

Where do you get your information?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Repercussions

quote:

Eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.


• Colonel Thomas Pappas was relieved of his command on May 13, 2005, after receiving non-judicial punishment for two instances of dereliction of duty, including that of allowing dogs to be present during interrogations. He was fined $8000 under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (non-judicial punishment). He also received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand which effectively ended his military career.
  
• Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan became the highest-ranking officer to have charges brought against him in connection with the Abu Ghraib abuse on April 29, 2006.[79] Prior to his trial, eight of the twelve charges against him were dismissed, including two of the most serious, after Major General George Fay admitted that he did not read Jordan his rights before interviewing him. On August 28, 2007, Jordan was acquitted of all charges related to prisoner mistreatment, and received a reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss a 2004 investigation into the allegations.[80]
  
• Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, dishonorable discharge, and reduction in rank to private.[81][82] Graner was paroled from the U.S. military's Fort Leavenworth prison on August 6, 2011 after serving six-and-a-half years.[83]
  
• Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pleaded guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act, in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included forcing three prisoners to masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.[84][85][86] He was released on parole in October 2007, after four years in prison.[87]
  
• Sergeant Javal Davis pleaded guilty on February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements, and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
  Specialist Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to a bad conduct discharge and a reduction of rank to private, upon his guilty plea.[88]
  
• Specialist Armin Cruz was sentenced on September 11, 2004, to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[89]
  
• Specialist Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005, to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. Previously, she had faced a maximum sentence of five years.[90] Harman served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[91]
  
• Specialist Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty, and sentenced to reduction in rank to private, and loss of a half-month's pay.[92]
  
• Private First Class Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years. She was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to three years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to Private (E-1) and received a dishonorable discharge.[86] England had served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[93] She was paroled on March 1, 2007, after having served 1 year and 5 months.[93]
  
• Sergeant Santos Cardona was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the U.S. civilian justice system. A military judge imposed a fine and reduction in rank, and he served 90 days of hard labor at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.[94] Cardona was unable to re-enlist due to the conviction. On September 29, 2007, Cardona left the Army with an Honorable Discharge.[95] In 2009, he was killed in action while working as a government contractor in Afghanistan.
  
• Specialist Roman Krol pleaded guilty on February 1, 2005 to conspiracy and maltreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. He was sentenced to ten months confinement, reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.[96]
  
• Specialist Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, was under investigation but was never charged and testified against other soldiers.
  
• Sergeant Michael Smith was found guilty on March 21, 2006 of two counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault, one count of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act, and sentenced to 179 days in prison, a fine of $2,250, a demotion to private, and a bad conduct discharge.

According to your assertion, those soldiers whose names are in bold were actually all the same guy.

I stand corrected taking as evidence in your post but it is a bit conspicuous that the only ones to suffer the wrath of the law, were no higher it appears...than E5. (maybe E6)
The Maj. gen fails to read rights to the Lt. Col and then the Col. is 'acquitted' of all charges and gets a reprimand.

quote:

Then there are the wall street bankers who it seems are also...above the law. Only Iceland of all places prosecuted their banksters.

quote:

Look, from Nixon on, few and sometimes nobody pays for their crimes (Liddy) and while HRC has nothing I see to be proud of, what we see, is a very partisan affair in the right going after her for 25 years and without ever producing any charges. Even Col. North (Reagan white house, Iran/Contra) gets off on a technicality, the idea being that his testifying in congress was a violation of his 5th amend. rights if I recall correctly.
So if there is a double standard and there is, seems now the dems are only beginning to catch up. Yes, it is a sorry state of affairs but as I've also said, it doesn't matter in that even if a squeaky clean pol is elected POUS...he (or she) WILL play ball and nothing changes.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...
Yes, there is a definite double standard. And, no, it should not exist. We the People need to restore the rule of law to the US before it gets much worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/blowback-begins-marine-demands-same-treatment-hillary

The FBI's decision to recommend that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton has been labeled a double standard of epic proportions, and now the decision will trigger further unintended consequences.

A Marine Corps officer who has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information now intends to demand the same treatment that Hillary received.

Maj. Jason Brezler sent a classified message using an unclassified Yahoo email account to warn fellow Marines in southern Afghanistan about a potentially corrupt Afghan police chief. A servant of that police chief killed three Marines and severely wounded a fourth 17 days later, on August 10, 2012, opening fire with a Kalashnikov rifle in an insider attack WaPo reports.

Brezler, who is still in the reserves and who works full time for the New York City Fire Department, was not charged criminally in the case, but he was issued a potentially career ending fitness (fit to continue serving) report after self-reporting that he sent the classified email to Afghanistan. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) even wrote then-Commandant Gen. James F. Amos about the case in August 2013 and asked whether it was necessary to be so harsh on someone who had warned fellow Marines of a potential threat in combat. Furthermore, the Naval Criminal Investigation Service reviewed electronics voluntarily turned over by Brezler and determined that there were more than 100 classified documents on his personal, unclassified hard drive and thumb drive. The board of inquiry recommended removing Brezler from the service in December 2013 after prosecutors argued that he knowingly kept classified information in order to help him write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan.

The case has been tied up in federal court since Brezler sued the service in December 2014, and Brezler's attorney, Michael J. Bowe, intends to cite the treatment of Clinton as an example of how severely Brezler was punished.
...