Trump pardons Navy sailor who took illegal submarine photos: Please explain

[fskimospy]

You’ve yet to demonstrate why he is wrong. We have literally seen the text messages indicating that the FBI very much wrestled with the decision, which tells me the precedence was unclear, or not nearly as established as you make it out to be.

This is baffling. I exactly demonstrated why he was wrong: governing SCOTUS precedent says the standard he was attempting to apply is unconstitutional. Hard to be more clear than that.

Doesn’t that explain why ‘no sane prosecutor’ would pursue that case? Unless you can provide some evidence that the ruling doesn’t apply French is either incompetent or dishonest.

 

[UberNeuman]

This is baffling. I exactly demonstrated why he was wrong: governing SCOTUS precedent says the standard he was attempting to apply is unconstitutional. Hard to be more clear than that.

Doesn’t that explain why ‘no sane prosecutor’ would pursue that case? Unless you can provide some evidence that the ruling doesn’t apply French is either incompetent or dishonest.

I present evidence found under Paragraph 3, sub section 4 which clearly states "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is baffling. I exactly demonstrated why he was wrong: governing SCOTUS precedent says the standard he was attempting to apply is unconstitutional. Hard to be more clear than that.

Doesn’t that explain why ‘no sane prosecutor’ would pursue that case? Unless you can provide some evidence that the ruling doesn’t apply French is either incompetent or dishonest.

If the NYT saw it fit to publish his article, it is neither dishonest nor incompetent. There is nothing baffling about this discussion. While SCOTUS sets governing precedence, even precedence is not absolute.

You are correct that Comey stated no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case. Yet he also saw reason enough to reopen the case just prior to election day, as the potential existed for the Abedin emails to establish intent.

What you perceive as an open and shut case, I see as a razor thin decision based on other unprecedented and mitigating factors. I don’t see either of us shifting from those positions.

 

[UberNeuman]

lol.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well. I have worked places where you cannot take any kind of mobile device into server rooms (which probably isn't that uncommon). Phones, tablets, smartwatches whatever. However they don't have guards there so you can take your phone into the server room if you want. You aren't supposed to but you can. Of course there are then additional layers of security inside. Some places have another server room inside the server room. Which is even more secure. They always have the entire room covered with CCTV.

Anyway. He spent a year in prison for a reason.

EDIT: I should add that I am not a big fan of people who mishandle classified material.

This is what I find most frustrating about these conversations around the handling of classified information. It is not an arbitrary or insignificant responsibility, and it is certainly not something to circumvent for convenience. As harmless as it may seem to take a few photos of where you work to show mom and dad, that context, however innocent it may seem, is a dangerous behavior to excuse.

Trump was wrong to pardon this sailor to throw a political jab at Clinton.

 

[fskimospy]

If the NYT saw it fit to publish his article, it is neither dishonest nor incompetent. There is nothing baffling about this discussion. While SCOTUS sets governing precedence, even precedence is not absolute.

They published it under their debate section. The NYT exerts almost zero editorial control over what goes in there so them publishing it does not in any way endorse the argument or vouch for its quality.

You are correct that Comey stated no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case. Yet he also saw reason enough to reopen the case just prior to election day, as the potential existed for the Abedin emails to establish intent.

Yes, I’m sure he thought it was possible that new evidence would change his conclusions. That’s true for anything though.

What you perceive as an open and shut case, I see as a razor thin decision based on other unprecedented and mitigating factors. I don’t see either of us shifting from those positions.

Yes but mine is backed by evidence. Yours is backed by an editorial piece that I’ve explicitly shown to be either incompetent or deliberately misleading.

All I’m looking for is what statute they were supposed to prosecute her under. You’ve done more than most by at least naming one but even that was not compelling.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Simple question, do you think in terms of classification the Secretary of State should be held to the same standards as say a newly enlisted soldier? Should the President also be held to the same standard? I don't think Hilary should have had a private server but this is getting stupid. She was the Secretary of State; a 24 hour job. If she wasn't trying to commit espionage, It's amazing people are still talking about it. There is no doubt what she did was careless. On the other hand we have a navy soldier, (there are thousands of them), in very shady circumstances removing classified info and all the peons on the right believe he should have gotten pardoned. Let's take this to the natural extreme, what happens if all soldiers decided to just remove classified information because they just want to show their family? What then?

I'm going to call it. A large part of this is racism and sexism. A white navy soldier should somehow be treated equally to the Black President of the US and female Secretary of State, because as we all know, they've worked equally hard to get where they are.

Btw, I await the same excuse when the debate comes around whether Trump can be indicted or not. The President should be treated the same as a navy soldier right? If a navy should be able to called to testify and then indicted then Trump should be also, right?

So? The heck with FBI. Call NCIS!

 

[VRAMdemon]

LOL, no because she is a useful distraction. It would be nice if both political parties had a code of ethics to, oh I don’t know, disqualify any candidate who has done something that warrants an investigation by the FBI.

Does anybody really think Hillary was the only one in Washington guilty of the crimes she is accused of?..I bet quite a few in congress has done the things she's been accused of. The Trump administration, his family are doing the same things in regards to classified information as we speak. But they seem to do not want him to be locked up. They all expected to be balls-deep in the Hillary criminal hearings by now. The "lock her up" chants still rule the day for the Republicans and Trumpists.

Trump is now President. The Attorney General is a Republican. There are Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. A majority of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees. So if Hillary Clinton committed some crime and deserved to be locked up, why isn't she being investigated and convicted and imprisoned? Why aren't people yelling at Trump to get do his job and get this dangerous criminal off the streets? They should be protesting outside Sessions' office, chanting "DO YOUR JOB! INDICT HILLARY!, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FOR, JUST INDICT HER NOW!

You are correct that she is a useful distraction. It's a effective play, so they'll keep running it until it stops gaining yardage. She's the girlfriend they enjoyed shitting on but wanted to keep around, but now she's gone and they just can't stop thinking about her. Hillary's been out of politics for nearly 16 months now, and she's still living rent-free in their heads. The longer it continues, the more amusing it is. The Russian bots also keep pushing the anti-Hillary stuff, because it’s effective at keeping us as divided and demoralized as possible, which i'm sure is Putin’s goal.

How many investigations (and how much money spent) have the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) been involved in?

- Whitewater
- Travelgate
- Vince Foster
- Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky (with Whitewater investigation ran over 4 years and cost nearly $40 million)
- Filegate
- Benghazi (there were 7 separate probes into this)
- Clinton Foundation
- Private email server

What did Republicans get for all this? Bill lying under oath about a blow job. And nothing on Hillary.

They need to make the fucking' border wall out of Hillary, because no one can get over her

 

[emperus]

The FBI chose not to indict given the implications, and it is obvious they deliberated extensively over that decision. What she did was illegal if it were you or I.

You are correct. I dismiss the rationalizations of people who defend Clinton, based on the premise that a candidate under investigation by the FBI does not deserve to become President...and that assessment applied equally to Trump.

You're good at moving goalposts and erecting straw men. The point of contention is why you choose to supplant your beliefs for the facts of the FBI. The FBI found there was basis to charge Hilary.

 

[IJTSSG]

" And nothing on Hillary."

It was, thankfully, enough to keep her from being elected President.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You're good at moving goalposts and erecting straw men. The point of contention is why you choose to supplant your beliefs for the facts of the FBI. The FBI found there was basis to charge Hilary.

In the context of what you quoted, your post doesn’t make any sense. What are you asking?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't support it, but it's a back handed bitch slap to Hillary and her classified email screw up.

That's the whole point, isn't it? Trumpsters' response to the word "Hillary" is Pavlovian at this point. Howling at the moon. Were they still chanting lock her up at the most recent rally?

 

[Ackmed]

It is interesting to me that several people here are perfectly fine with Manning getting a pardon, yet not this guy. One act seems far worse than the other to me, and its not the picture taking. Curious as to their reasoning for the different opinions. Complaining about the comparison to Hillary is also amusing, both parties seemed to have destroyed hardware to hide evidence. Seems pretty linkable to me.

Yes I am aware that taking pictures of top secret material is a big offense. We are not allowed cell phones at work, no thumb drives, no cameras, no smart watches, no anything. Zero electronics of any kind. If someone snuck a camera and took pictures of what goes on at my work, they would be terminated on the spot, and prosecuted. I don't take his offense lightly. He did serve his sentence, and compared to pardons by the last administration arguing against this one seems silly. But, I'm used to the hypocrites around here on the left, so I'm not even surprised.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It is interesting to me that several people here are perfectly fine with Manning getting a pardon, yet not this guy. One act seems far worse than the other to me, and its not the picture taking. Curious as to their reasoning for the different opinions. Complaining about the comparison to Hillary is also amusing, both parties seemed to have destroyed hardware to hide evidence. Seems pretty linkable to me.

Yes I am aware that taking pictures of top secret material is a big offense. We are not allowed cell phones at work, no thumb drives, no cameras, no smart watches, no anything. Zero electronics of any kind. If someone snuck a camera and took pictures of what goes on at my work, they would be terminated on the spot, and prosecuted. I don't take his offense lightly. He did serve his sentence, and compared to pardons by the last administration arguing against this one seems silly. But, I'm used to the hypocrites around here on the left, so I'm not even surprised.

Don't worry, the blatant, and never ending hypocrisy on the right is equally noted.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is interesting to me that several people here are perfectly fine with Manning getting a pardon, yet not this guy. One act seems far worse than the other to me, and its not the picture taking. Curious as to their reasoning for the different opinions. Complaining about the comparison to Hillary is also amusing, both parties seemed to have destroyed hardware to hide evidence. Seems pretty linkable to me.

Yes I am aware that taking pictures of top secret material is a big offense. We are not allowed cell phones at work, no thumb drives, no cameras, no smart watches, no anything. Zero electronics of any kind. If someone snuck a camera and took pictures of what goes on at my work, they would be terminated on the spot, and prosecuted. I don't take his offense lightly. He did serve his sentence, and compared to pardons by the last administration arguing against this one seems silly. But, I'm used to the hypocrites around here on the left, so I'm not even surprised.

I don't have a problem with the pardon- the guy caught a break. Good for him. I have a problem with the reasons for it, which are pure political pandering & the beating of the dead horse Hillary. They'll be beating that one forever.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Does anybody really think Hillary was the only one in Washington guilty of the crimes she is accused of

Probably not, but when you run for President, self inflicted wounds become exploitable.

Trump is now President. The Attorney General is a Republican. There are Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. A majority of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees. So if Hillary Clinton committed some crime and deserved to be locked up, why isn't she being investigated and convicted and imprisoned?

Because right now Russia is the center of attention and she is politically dead. The calls for war crime charges against Bush and Cheney died after Obama won as well.

How many investigations (and how much money spent) have the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) been involved in?
- Whitewater
- Travelgate
- Vince Foster
- Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky (with Whitewater investigation ran over 4 years and cost nearly $40 million)
- Filegate
- Benghazi (there were 7 separate probes into this)
- Clinton Foundation
- Private email server

All of those examples are a measure of character and trustworthiness, a playbook that even Obama used to beat her.

What did Republicans get for all this? Bill lying under oath about a blow job. And nothing on Hillary.

Would be nice in the age of #metoo for Democrats to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his behavior as governor and in the White House.

Also, relevent to this topic, let’s not forget Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich to help Hillary win the Senate seat in NY.

 

[Jhhnn]

Probably not, but when you run for President, self inflicted wounds become exploitable.


Because right now Russia is the center of attention and she is politically dead. The calls for war crime charges against Bush and Cheney died after Obama won as well.


All of those examples are a measure of character and trustworthiness, a playbook that even Obama used to beat her.


Would be nice in the age of #metoo for Democrats to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his behavior as governor and in the White House.

Also, relevent to this topic, let’s not forget Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich to help Hillary win the Senate seat in NY.

The Great Obfuscator has spoken!

Trump keeps bringing it up, one way or another, clearly as a duh-version from his own issues. If Hillary were prosecutable it would already be happening, I figure. The only part of the DOJ over which Sessions has no control is the Special Counsel. Other than that he can do as he pleases.

Of course all the faux scandals mentioned tarnished Hillary's character despite the fact that they're all nothingburgers. That was the intent. Some people will fall for anything. That's why Trump is President, isn't it?

When has Bill Clinton not been held to a higher standard than the great pussy grabber?

Nice conspiracy theory about Marc Rich, btw. Maybe you can explain how that plays into the topic at hand. Well, or any of what I quoted for that matter. It doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

It is interesting to me that several people here are perfectly fine with Manning getting a pardon, yet not this guy. One act seems far worse than the other to me, and its not the picture taking. Curious as to their reasoning for the different opinions. Complaining about the comparison to Hillary is also amusing, both parties seemed to have destroyed hardware to hide evidence. Seems pretty linkable to me.

Yes I am aware that taking pictures of top secret material is a big offense. We are not allowed cell phones at work, no thumb drives, no cameras, no smart watches, no anything. Zero electronics of any kind. If someone snuck a camera and took pictures of what goes on at my work, they would be terminated on the spot, and prosecuted. I don't take his offense lightly. He did serve his sentence, and compared to pardons by the last administration arguing against this one seems silly. But, I'm used to the hypocrites around here on the left, so I'm not even surprised.

Clinton did not destroy hardware to hide evidence.

It’s amazing the sort of nonsense you guys convince yourselves of.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Of course all the faux scandals mentioned tarnished Hillary's character despite the fact that they're all nothingburgers. That was the intent. Some people will fall for anything. That's why Trump is President, isn't it?

Obama used the same playbook. He was able to secure the nomination by attacking her credibility. I wonder why that strategy is so effective.

When has Bill Clinton not been held to a higher standard than the great pussy grabber?

Was there a march after Bill Clinton won the Presidency, or even a call to revoke his role as a super delegate?

Nice conspiracy theory about Marc Rich, btw. Maybe you can explain how that plays into the topic at hand. Well, or any of what I quoted for that matter. It doesn't.

A President granting a questionable pardon to score political points. Clinton got a lot of heat for that pardon, and rightfully so.

 

[emperus]

Probably not, but when you run for President, self inflicted wounds become exploitable.


Because right now Russia is the center of attention and she is politically dead. The calls for war crime charges against Bush and Cheney died after Obama won as well.


All of those examples are a measure of character and trustworthiness, a playbook that even Obama used to beat her.


Would be nice in the age of #metoo for Democrats to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his behavior as governor and in the White House.

Also, relevent to this topic, let’s not forget Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich to help Hillary win the Senate seat in NY.

Did you just compare the issues against Bush and Cheney with Clinton's email scandal? That's asinine.
You seem to be a right wing nutter trying to package yourself in a moderate package.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Did you just compare the issues against Bush and Cheney with Clinton's email scandal? That's asinine.
You seem to be a right wing nutter trying to package yourself in a moderate package.

You seem to be punting. Explain why you believe its an asinine comparison.

 

[bshole]

WASHINGTON — The White House announced Friday that President Donald Trump has pardoned a Navy sailor who took photos of classified areas inside a submarine and served a year in federal prison.
https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/trump-pardons-navy-sailor-who-took-illegal-submarine-photos/

Can someone who supported this explain to me why they support it? I'm having a hard time getting my around the rational for this pardon.

Judge Underhill rejected this argument as weak, but sentenced Saucier to one year in prison (rather than the five to seven years under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines) because he determined Saucier to be "fundamentally...a good person" who had done a "beyond stupid" act.[5]

I support taking it off his record. My brother was convicted of a felony when he was young as well. He did no time but the felony conviction on his record had massive negative impacts on his life. This guy did a year in jail and was dishonorably discharged, that is punishment enough. This kind of reminds me of the Bergdahl case. Dude spent years being tortured and when he gets back everybody wants to prosecute him. IMHO, it is not outrageous to extend a little empathy to kids who make one stupid mistake.

For clarification, while I do agree with pardoning this guy, I disagree with dragging Hillary into it. It says something about Trump's character that such a ploy would be effective. I have to wonder if this guy would have been pardoned if Hillary hadn't been mentioned.

 

[brycejones]

All I’m looking for is what statute they were supposed to prosecute her under. You’ve done more than most by at least naming one but even that was not compelling.

@Starbuck1975 or any other poster focused on buttery emails

Strangely quiet when asked for this info.

 

[Starbuck1975]

@Starbuck1975 or any other poster focused on buttery emails

Strangely quiet when asked for this info.

So much knee jerk fail. I cited the info requested in post #62, which @fskimospy acknowledged in post #82 even if he did not find it compelling.

 

[zinfamous]

Look, if we outlaw all sailors with cameras then only criminal sailors will have cameras.

....or something.