Posted on Jul 7, 2016
The Department of Political Justice | Fox News
4.23K
108
89
9
9
0
Is the Rule of Law dead in America?
The Department of Political Justice | Fox News
Posted from foxnews.com
Law
Justice
Equality
Politics
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 13
8
8
0
Col Joseph Lenertz If you or I handled information security the way Hillary did, we would at a minimum lose our clearance. Now if your job requires that you have that clearance, you are transferring to Physical Security, Paint chipping, or the chow hall. At worst you would be re-assigned to beautiful Fort Leavenworth Kansas where you would find your days filled with learning a new trade like making license plates, and building furniture. Point is that we would not be told we were careless but it is ok. We would be prosecuted. Rightfully so. The FBI came out and contradicted themselves. She was careless and negligent, but we don't recommend charges? Really? Rule of law may not be dead, but it is certainly is not being applied unbiased. It is not being applied to all citizens equally. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind. There was not supposed to be a ruling class that is above the rules. Yet here we are with a ruling class that is exactly that above the rules.
(8)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Steven Sherrill - Unfortunately, the President "by virtue of billet" is accorded a Security Clearance necessary to perform the duties of the job. Additionally, I "believe" that the President is the "granting authority" for all Security Clearances, by EO within the US. It's hard to revoke the clearance of the person who grants them.
(2)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
All this fiasco has done is proven what I, and many others, have been stating for a long time. Despite the fact the Founders intended the United States to be a Republican form of government (government type, not the political party for those who may misconstrue my comments), we rapidly degraded to nothing more than an Oligarchy within the first couple of decades of our existence! The fact that Clinton is seemingly going to get away with this gross DISREGARD (I won't call it negligence because negligence implies lack of intent) of national security clearly demonstrates that we have a ruling class that is above the law.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
TSgt Frank Shirley - Bullshit. Intent or not doesn't matter. She violated U.S. Security Policy. Partisan politics should be put aside in the interest of National security. Democrats should have the balls to say this woman does not represent our values, and does not represent our dedication to the nation. Who is doing so? Name a Democrat who is willing to admit that Hillary was wrong, and damaged our national security. I will go back to intentional or not Tsgt Shirley, you or I would be in jail if we did what she did. That is not a republican view. That is not a democrat view. That is reality. IF a non elite pulls what she did, they are in jail. I will give you that when they all were up in arms about Obama's birth certificate it seemed even then like much ado about nothing. This is National Security. If nothing else HILLARY should be stepping up and taking responsibility for her actions, but nope not her. She is as qualified to President as my dog is.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
TSgt Frank Shirley PO3 Steven Sherrill - Because she claims to have NO knowledge of what her attorneys were doing or going to do i.e., destroy evidence and wipe servers...like she really had no idea...give me a break.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Col Joseph Lenertz great read and share with great points of interest. I am speechless!
How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging "extreme carelessness" while denying "gross negligence" about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?
These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.
How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging "extreme carelessness" while denying "gross negligence" about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?
These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.
(8)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
I believe they are hoping that since 95% of Americans don't have a security clearance or have never worked with classified information, they will believe this is no big deal!
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
That's the thing though. Extreme carelessness and Gross Negligence don't mean the same thing. One is a (Subjective) Legal Term, implying willful (intentional) disregard, whereas the other doesn't have the same connotation.
To draw a parallel. It would be like saying Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles are the same thing. They aren't.
I am in no way implying SHE was correct, however, Dir Comey (R) by all reports has never been one to bow to political pressures before, and even though I disagree with him on MANY of his stances (cyber), I find it unlikely that he would go against conscious on this.
To draw a parallel. It would be like saying Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles are the same thing. They aren't.
I am in no way implying SHE was correct, however, Dir Comey (R) by all reports has never been one to bow to political pressures before, and even though I disagree with him on MANY of his stances (cyber), I find it unlikely that he would go against conscious on this.
(0)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
MCPO Paul Kah - I think it is absolutely spin. It was designed to ensure that, given the reality that he knew his press release was going to end by stating the FBI was not recommending charges be filed, he had to be careful to avoid use of terminology blatantly used in the laws she clearly broke. On the other hand, personally, I wouldn't use the term gross negligence for her actions (unless I had to in order to push legal action) because, to me, negligence implies a lack of intent. Clinton fully intended to disregard the law because she fully believes herself to be above the law. She purposely and willfully disregarded national security because following it was inconvenient for her. Her actions weren't grossly negligent, they were premeditated and willful disregard for national security!
(0)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
TSgt Frank Shirley - The US Codes that apply to Clinton's actions do not require intent as a qualifier for criminality! That is the heart of the problem. Far too many people that don't understand security clearances and how the laws surrounding them work (the vast majority of Americans) have the same misconception that you just espoused that intent is necessary for there to be a crime. This is exactly why Comey, Lynch, et al believe that they will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. They are using the general apathy of the populous to allow travesties of justice like this to slide!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
IT'S NOT THE RULE OF LAW.....IT'S ABOVE THE LAW, THAT ALLOWED THIS OUTCOME, TREACHEROUS !
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google