Post removed

[Lizzie Poppet]

1. Good luck getting a substantive response.

And that had probably best be all I say about that here...

[emulatorloo]

6. Good luck supporting boomer's right-wing family members.

[peabody]

19. There are lots of substantive responses below.

Read and educate yourself.

[pnwmom]

27. The article left out that Nishimura also dumped his storage devices into a lake.

And he deliberately downloaded classified info into his personal systems.

Hillary did not.

[tk2kewl]

2. b/c downloading the info and taking it home

is more dangerous than storing it on unencrypted servers on the internet?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. A home computer can also be an unencrypted server on the internet. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.

It's quite obvious, though.

Nishimura INTENTIONALLY copied classified material that was marked "eyes only", then kept the material after he no longer had clearance, and even made other copies of it.

Hillary had information that was considered classified, but not marked as such in her email. It was not intentional.

[Gothmog]

25. I agree with your analysis

[tonyt53]

4. Sure will. One word "malice".

His actions did him in. By moving those records from one location to another was an intentional act to hide what he had done. His actions showed intent and are evidently very questionable.

Per Merriam-Webster: malice- 1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

[lapfog_1]

7. Everyone needs to go back and listen to Comer

Comer listed a number of exceptions and preconditions for recommending indictment.

Intent, no matter the other factors, or evidence of disloyalty, no matter other factors... would create the indictment.

In both cases (Clinton and this Navy reservist), there was no intent nor disloyalty.

In Clinton's case, no transmission of classified material (either marked or not marked) was transmitted to someone that didn't have the needed security clearance.

The last condition that Comer mentioned was the sheer volume of classified material left on an unsecured system.

And it is that fact that probably is the major difference between the two cases... Clinton had some 150 individual emails that dealt in classified data... Nishimura had a "large quantity".

[scscholar]

8. Because it is completely different

The FBI wouldn't have found her innocent if not.

[virginia mountainman]

13. Ahhh

Did you watch the same press conferences that i did? She was not found innocent at all, she simply was not charged

[JTFrog]

17. Not found innocent of what?

And not charged with what?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. It doesn't matter what.

They found no evidence of criminal activity. That is not the same thing as finding someone innocent. No one, in the history of the American justice system, has ever been found "innocent" of anything. You can't prove a negative.

[JTFrog]

22. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. The operative word being "presumed"

It's a minor quibble, but it's important. There's a difference between being "found innocent", which doesn't happen, and being presumed innocent.

[JTFrog]

26. Yes, but I was replying to someone who said "she was not found innocent".

I was hoping the poster would take the opportunity to redeem themselves.

[msongs]

20. under the american system one is presumed innocent if not charged, a minor quibble to be sure nt

[Maeve]

9. Sigh. First, the laws governing military and civilians are quite different

Second, he copied the material he knew to be classified and carried it off-base. He lied to the FBI about the material, claiming he destroyed it without actually doing so. While there is no evidence presented that he intended to distribute it, he had no reasonable excuse for acquiring/copying it inhis professional capacity.

Secretary Clinton worked at home and away from her office; she had a reason to be able to access information around the clock. She did not lie to the FBI. Unlike, say, Colin Powell, she made and turned over the required paper copies of the e-mail. The Director of the FBI, who is known to be less-than-Clinton-friendly, has stated that there is no criminal case to be made. Not that this will convince any Clinton-haters, but it is what it is.

[Lint Head]

10. Why is Karl "turd blossom" Rove not in jail for outing

a CIA agent? Why is Condo Rice not in jail for ignoring a CIA message saying Bin Laden to crash planes into tall buildings?

[Proud Public Servant]

11. Sure, I'll try

Nishimura deliberately took classified materials off a classified system, and then stored them on an unclassified device. Hillary was never accused of doing any such thing, and has consistently maintained that she never received any materials marked classified and was unaware of either receiving of forwarding classified information.

[boomer55]

16. perfect thanks!

[yallerdawg]

12. Here's just two things.

"Potential" evidence, resulting in FBI recommendation of no charges.

Secretary of State. She had authority. And a job to do!

Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.

But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

[actslikeacarrot]

14. UCMJ. Clinton never fell under it. N/T

[hack89]

15. He downloaded reams of classified info, illegally copied it and tried to cover up his crimes.

can you see the difference?

[lapucelle]

18. It's always disappointing when partisan laymen manage to find an irrelevant statute

or a case that is in no way on point and insist that it provides a basis for the malicious prosecution of an innocent party. What kind of American does that?

The best advice that you can give your "relatives" is to stop practicing law without the requisite education and license. It's stupid, dangerous, and, in some cases, actionable.

[Gothmog]

23. You got to be kidding

Anyone who thinks that these two cases are the same really do not understand the concepts being discussed. The Defendant was not authorized as part of his duties to download and keep the data while sending and receiving e-mails were part of Clinton's duties as Secretary of State. Politico has a good analysis of this case http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.
“They always involve some ‘plus’ factor. Sometimes that ‘plus’ factor may reach its way into the public record, but more likely it won’t,” one former federal prosecutor said....

Just last year, former Naval Reserve Commander Bryan Nishimura was charged with misdemeanor mishandling of classified information he acquired during his service in Afghanistan. He admitted that he often moved classified data, including satellite imagery, to unclassified systems and brought it back to the U.S. when he returned.

After coming under investigation, Nishimura threw some of the storage media in a Folsom, Calif. lake. He was sentenced to two years probation and a $7,500 fine.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744#ixzz4Deog0zDC
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

There was some plus factors for this defendant in that he failed to cooperate and attempted to conceal his crime by throwing material into a lake. The intent to cover up the crime shows intent to violate the law and was a plus factor justifying prosecution. The fact that Petraeaus attempted to conceal his crime is the reason why he was prosecuted.

Again the two cases are not that close from a legal standpoint.