Clinton Email Decision Seen As Lifeline For Those Facing Similar Charges
By Tim Johnson and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Washington Bureau
The FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and her staff on charges of mishandling classified information will give those accused of flouting national security rules a new line of defense even as it highlights a dual standard in how senior government officials are treated, several experts said Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey recommended Tuesday that no charges be filed against Clinton or her team for their handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, even though she was extremely careless in using a private email address and servers. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday that she agreed with Comeys assessment.
Lawyers who specialize in representing government and military officials whove had security clearances revoked said Comeys recommendation offered them a new tactic in seeking to rehabilitate their clients, especially if Clinton is elected president in November.
I intend to use the Hillary defense, said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article88042162.html#storylink=cpy
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)So that will probably be the bottom line for these cases.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)She did nothing she was accused of doing.
N o t h i n g.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)Lawyers are well known for making disingenuous arguments. And drawing false equivalencies.
For example, how many lies are in this sentence:
"I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar.
If he were honest, he'd call it the Bush Defense, as they deliberately released classified information to punish their political enemies.
But he isn't honest.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That said, if Mr. Bigley, the lawyer, thinks he can use any sort of defense with a military client, he needs to understand that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians, but it does apply to service members.
You'd think someone who managed to struggle through law school would take that point straight away.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)This should give us some idea how dishonest these lawyers are with their "Hillary Defense" bullshit.
This is exactly the kind of case they will draw false equivalencies to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141511638
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Former CIA Director David Petraeus hid materials in insulation in his attic as the FBI pursued its case about his mishandling of classified information, the bureaus director, James Comey, said Thursday.
Comey made the disclosure to argue the point that the prosecution of Petraeus, who knew he had top secret information and lied to the FBI about it, differed from the investigation into Hillary Clintons handling of classified information.
Comey did not recommend charges against Clinton, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, over her personal email server while she was secretary of State. He said his team found no evidence that she lied under oath or broke the law by discussing classified information in an unclassified setting.
In contrast, Petraeus pleaded guilty last year to knowingly sharing binders of classified information with his biographer, a woman with whom he was having a sexual relationship. The Justice Department made clear that the retired Army general knew the material was top secret when he divulged it and had lied to the FBI about it.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/former_cia_director_petraeus_hid_papers_in_attic_insulation/
2