Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 29, 2016, 02:41:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94955 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The war on the rule of law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print
Author Topic: The war on the rule of law  (Read 76003 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #450 on: February 08, 2016, 07:55:11 PM »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/08/irs-tea-party-targeting-lois-lerner-corruption--obama-glenn-reynolds-column/79967098/

Culture of corruption.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #451 on: February 26, 2016, 12:10:31 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-and-clintons-email-probe-1456448102
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #452 on: February 26, 2016, 09:28:05 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/issues/top-dems-outraged-over-obama-efforts-to-ignore-pro-israel-provisions/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #453 on: February 27, 2016, 10:52:37 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/11/report-lois-lerner-emails-show-obama-s-justice-department-assisted-irs-to-target-conservative-groups/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #454 on: March 01, 2016, 12:55:42 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwDy8fA7ZE
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #455 on: March 09, 2016, 12:16:23 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/judicial-watch-presses-ahead-with-fight-over-irs-criminal-investigation-facts/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #456 on: March 18, 2016, 11:26:34 AM »

How we now know that Hillary Clinton will not be prosecuted for anything
POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW

John wrote yesterday about how Barack Obama has been working behind the scenes to move large dollar Democratic donors away from Bernie Sanders and towards Hillary Clinton. This, combined with various attacks from his bully pulpit on Donald Trump, have led to the correct conclusion that Obama will wind up being one of the most active presidents in modern history in terms of the election of his successor. This was a point made this week by Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post. Traditionally, Presidents have bent over backward to at least lend the patina of non-involvement in such an election, allowing the voters to make their own choice, but not so in this case.

But we learned something else from this episode if you’re willing to look into the tea leaves closely enough. Michelle Jesse came to the same conclusion I did yesterday.

But the bigger point is, why would President Obama tell his party to unite around a candidate at serious risk of criminal indictment — when all signs from the FBI would indicate a very good chance, if not a certainty, that indictment will be recommended based on the investigation? Of course, he would only do such a thing if he knew — was determined — that, no matter what, the chosen candidate would not be charged.

Hillary Clinton herself has appeared to think she’s untouchable — even declaring with certainty that she will not be indicted. “Oh, for goodness, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question,” Clinton said recently in Miami.

There’s a reason that these two stories are so closely interwoven. If Barack Obama were taking the usual stance of presidents past he would simply express his support for whichever Democrat the voters chose in the primary and get on with his life, but this cycle has a number of wildcards mixed into the deck. You’d be hard pressed to find a parallel in the history of American politics where a major party presidential candidate was on the verge of winning the nomination while simultaneously facing the threat of indictment on serious criminal charges. (We won’t count Nixon in 72 because the break-in at the Watergate hotel didn’t happen until June of that year and there wasn’t a conviction until after Nixon was reelected and sworn in the following January.)
With the President being so clearly invested in electing a Democrat in general and Hillary Clinton in particular to continue his legacy, there’s simply no way he would risk putting his thumb on the scale for a candidate who might be essentially disqualified if she had to run the last stage of her campaign from a jail cell. With all that in mind, it’s difficult to conclude anything other than a presumption that Obama knows that Clinton will face no such peril. But how could he know that if the investigation isn’t even finished yet?

It’s a question which is answered rather easily, and it all comes down to Huma Abedin. It’s true that we’ve previously speculated that Huma might be the undoing of Clinton once all of her records are examined, but she also serves as an example of just how far the Obama administration is willing to go to block any damage to Clinton’s historic candidacy. When the Inspectors General turned over an embezzlement case against Abedin for prosecution, the Justice Department promptly dropped it in the circular file as an act of prosecutorial discretionand that was the end of it.

Is there any reason that they won’t do the same with Hillary Clinton herself? There are only two people who can know the answer to that question with certainty and they are Barack Obama himself and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If the fix is in and Lynch has been told to flush any recommendation she receives from the FBI or other law enforcement officials, Clinton is in the clear and the campaign can continue without losing any sleep. But if there was even a chance that an indictment was coming, you’d see Barack Obama sidestepping away from Hillary as fast as his feet could carry him.

The game is rigged, folks. At this point even the FBI must be wondering why they’re even bothering with all this work.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #457 on: March 24, 2016, 11:15:42 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/23/obama-administrations-continuous-resistance-in-irs-targeting-case-slammed-by-federal-appeals-court/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #458 on: March 30, 2016, 08:29:01 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-clinton-isnt-indicted/2016/03/29/81a1033e-f5d7-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #459 on: April 09, 2016, 07:14:49 PM »

http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/ag-loretta-lynch-wants-to-let-nation-break-law-without-consequences/

AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences
By Paul Sperry March 27, 2016 | 6:00am
Modal Trigger AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences


Black Democrats pitch Loretta Lynch for Supreme Court
As New York moves to decriminalize low-level offenses, arguing enforcement is “rigged against communities of color,” other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department to do the same thing.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has issued a warning to municipal and state judges across the country that their courts could lose federal funding if they don’t ease up on fines and arrest warrants for minor crimes involving poor offenders, indigent minorities in particular.

In lieu of fines and jail time, Lynch urges the nation’s 6,500 municipal courts to provide an avenue for offenders to perform “community service” or take advantage of “amnesty days,” whereby outstanding arrest warrants are cleared for nominal fees.

Failure to comply with these policies could trigger a Ferguson-style discrimination investigation. Already, Lynch says she’s “evaluating discrimination complaints against several court systems.”

A strongly worded “guidance” letter, written by her civil rights team, warns that a local court policy of enforcing warrants for failure to pay court fines and fees can have an adverse “disparate impact” on African-Americans, who are fined and/or arrested for outstanding warrants at “disproportionate” rates versus whites.

Federal data also show that blacks tend to break both felony and misdemeanor laws at a disproportionate rate. Even if applied evenly across all races and in neutral, color-blind fashion, such policies could be found by Justice to be discriminatory.

“In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race,” the nine-page letters states.

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.
This is the same dubious legal threat the administration is using to force the nation’s public schools to back off suspending unruly — even violent — black students, and to force cops to avoid stopping, frisking and arresting minority offenders.

The Supreme Court has ruled that disparate impact doesn’t violate Title VI, only “intentional” discrimination does. “The administration is quite wrong to say that Title VI incorporates a ‘disparate impact’ standard,” Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity points out. “The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it does not.”

This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has scaled back its aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses only to see both minor and serious crime rebound. Already cops have backed off public urination and other public nuisance violations, while overlooking outstanding warrants for many other misdemeanor crimes.

Even a senior Justice Department official predicts the decriminalization-cum-deincarceration movement will backfire in higher crime nationwide. “In five years the crime rate is going to be crazy again,” he said.

The official, who oversees probation of felons paroled from federal prisons and who requested anonymity, worries the new department policy will be abused.

“I don’t see liberal judges even attempting to make people pay or spending the time making an accurate determination of a person being ‘indigent,’ ” he said. “It’s another way of not holding people accountable for their actions.”

Modal Trigger
The Justice guidance defines “indigent” as anybody who might be “eligible for public benefits,” but not actually receiving them. “Jurisdictions may benefit from creating statutory presumptions of indigency for certain classes of defendants,” the source said.

The administration claims cops and courts conspire to exploit poor blacks to generate city revenue in some kind of shakedown. But data show blacks fail to pay their fines at far greater rates than whites, so why not target whites if cash extortion is the objective?

Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.

“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.

Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.

Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.

Former federal civil rights attorney Hans Bader, now with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes the latest reforms as a “massive assault on the criminal justice system.”

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration.”
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5453


« Reply #460 on: April 09, 2016, 07:32:30 PM »

Just another example of the war on white people.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #461 on: April 18, 2016, 05:48:00 PM »

While I was gone I saw something about how Baraq said there would be no White House interference with the FBI/DOJ investigation of the Empress Dowager and then later in the same comments he interfered.  Anyone have a good citation for this?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5453


« Reply #462 on: April 18, 2016, 09:30:05 PM »

 'Anyone have a good citation for this?':
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/11/after-obama-says-he-not-influencing-email-investigation-conservative-media-claim-president-%E2%80%9Ctipping/209859
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 10:02:51 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #463 on: April 18, 2016, 10:03:01 PM »

Thank you.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7922


« Reply #464 on: April 19, 2016, 01:16:35 PM »

He has been meddling from the beginning, like he did with Supreme Court cases, Fast and Furious and IRS Targeting.  Just the fact that he guarantees no political influence tells us there is. 

What else would be holding up the investigation?  Why didn't he start the investigation when he found out about her personal server long before we did?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7922


« Reply #465 on: April 27, 2016, 11:13:13 AM »

(Moving this over by request)  I'm sure everyone has already seen this case plastered all over the news...

Serious misconduct and cover up by the New Orleans police followed by misconduct of the Justice Department lawyers in the case. The judge excoriates in very strong language the conduct of gov’t prosecutors and their supervisors in Washington. The judge puts the blame on the supervisors of the civil rights division of the Justice Dept. and Thomas Perez, the current Secretary of Labor and head of the Civil Rights Division at the time, is specifically mentioned.

Perez is a possible Hillary VP choice and Loretta Lynch runs a Justice Department that still hasn't acted on Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, black Panthers voter interference or Hillary Clinton's security breaches.  Also note the lack of coverage outside of that region.  Does anyone here know more on this?

More here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/across-the-danziger-bridge.php
and here:
http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/15568565-123/with-danziger-bridge-pleas-federal-judge-unloads-on-top-government-officials
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #466 on: April 27, 2016, 02:04:13 PM »

Lets keep an eye out for those names should they become part of the Empress Dowager's campaign.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #467 on: April 27, 2016, 09:41:19 PM »

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/52457.html


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #468 on: May 06, 2016, 11:06:13 AM »

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trey-gowdy-benghazi-probe-222867#ixzz47saswgTB
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #469 on: May 06, 2016, 12:46:42 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5453


« Reply #470 on: May 07, 2016, 07:16:00 AM »

This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #471 on: May 07, 2016, 07:28:09 AM »

This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/

The JV squad is somehow exempt. Obama has a pen and a phone.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7922


« Reply #472 on: May 07, 2016, 02:59:19 PM »

This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/
The JV squad is somehow exempt. Obama has a pen and a phone.

I think Rand Paul had an authorization of force proposal.  Even if you oppose use of force, you should support taking and up or down vote.  Are we at war with ISIS or not?  To be at war, the constitution requires that congress declare it.  Even against a "JV team".  I don't know a sports analogy that works for people who blow up civilians and decapitate innocent people.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #473 on: May 07, 2016, 05:36:27 PM »

"Obama has a pen and a drone."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #474 on: May 07, 2016, 07:21:47 PM »

"Obama has a pen and a drone."

I kick myself for not thinking of that! Nice.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #475 on: May 19, 2016, 07:00:05 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435630/federal-judge-issues-extraordinary-order-sanctioning-doj-misconduct-executive-amnesty
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #476 on: May 20, 2016, 02:57:49 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435393/hillary-clinton-e-mails-Cheryl-Mills-DOJ
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #477 on: May 23, 2016, 08:22:59 AM »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/22/government-corruption-law-abiding-society-trust-irs-hillary-clinton-column/84744432/

Glenn Reynolds: When leaders cheat, followers ... follow
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 4:14 p.m. EDT May 22, 2016
The trust that underlies a law-abiding society is rotting away thanks to double-dealing in Washington.


The state is “a gang of thieves writ large,” economist Murray Rothbard is said to have remarked. I’ve always viewed that sort of comment with a bit of skepticism. But now I’m beginning to wonder.

I wonder more when I read things like this report from the Washington Examiner: “The CIA's inspector general is claiming it inadvertently destroyed its only copy of a classified, three-volume Senate report on torture, prompting a leading senator to ask for reassurance that it was in fact ‘an accident.’”

Here’s a hint: It very likely wasn’t.

Is that unfair? I mean, it could have been an accident, right? Yeah it could have been. But it wasn’t. Accidents like that just don’t happen — or, when they do, they’re generally not accidents. And it’s right for people who have custody of evidence to know that any convenient “accidents” will give rise to the presumption that they had something pretty awful to hide, and that they hid it.

But, of course, the CIA’s “accident” was only the latest in a long rash of “accidental” losses of incriminating information in this administration. The IRS — whose Tea Party-targeting scandal is now over 1,100 days old without anyone being charged or sent to jail — seems to have a habit of ”accidentally” destroying hard drives containing potentially incriminating evidence. It has done so in spite of court orders, in spite of Congressional inquiries and in spite of pretty much everyone’s belief that these “accidents” were actually the deliberate, illegal destruction of incriminating evidence to protect the guilty.

Then there’s Hillary’s email scandal, in which emails kept on a private unsecure server — presumably to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures — were deleted. Now emails from Hillary’s IT guy, who is believed to have set up the server, have gone poof.

“Destroy the evidence, and you’ve got it made,” said an old frozen dinner commercial. But now that appears to be the motto of the United States government.

So why do the rest of us bother to obey the law? And, yes, that’s an increasingly serious question.

People follow the law for a mix of reasons. First, they may simply fear punishment. That undoubtedly motivates a lot of people, though in fact the risk of punishment is usually pretty low, and people, in general, obey the law even when the risk of being caught is negligible.

People may also obey the law because they agree with it: I don’t need to worry about the likelihood of punishment for torturing kittens because I think that’s wrong, and I wouldn’t do it anyway.

And people may obey the law because they think that being law-abiding is an important part of maintaining a viable society. But that’s the kind of law-abiding behavior that’s at risk when people at the top treat the law with unconcealed contempt.

Being law-abiding for its own sake is a traditional part of bourgeois culture, and our ruling class has lately treated the bourgeoisie with contempt as well. Which raises the risk that this contempt will be returned.

Back in the midst of the financial crisis, Gonzalo Lira looked at how people were responding to the mortgage meltdown and warned of a coming middle-class anarchy. He wrote:

“A terrible sentence, when a law-abiding citizen speaks it: Everybody else is doing it — so why don’t we? ... What’s really important is that law-abiding middle-class citizens are deciding that playing by the rules is nothing but a sucker’s game.”

America has been — and, for the moment, remains — a high-trust society. In high-trust societies, people extend trust to strangers and follow rules for the most part even when nobody is watching. In low-trust societies, trust seldom extends beyond close family, and everybody cheats if they can get away with it.

High-trust societies are much nicer places to live than low-trust ones. But a fish rots from the head and the head of our society is looking pretty rotten. As Lira says, “I’m like Wayne Gretsky: I don’t concern myself with where the puck has been — I look for where the puck is going to be.” Where will our society be in a decade if these trends continue? And what can we do to ensure that they don’t?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #478 on: May 25, 2016, 05:30:49 PM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/05/fed-judge-blasts-doj-lawyers-lying-court-defend-obama-amnesty/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5453


« Reply #479 on: May 25, 2016, 05:46:05 PM »

But what does "public scolding" mean? 

Are there any consequences?

Should not the state or DC bar take action against these attorneys?

What good is public scolding anyway?  It will not really be in the MSM domain.

What consequences? 

I assume there is no controlling legal authority.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7922


« Reply #480 on: May 25, 2016, 06:10:30 PM »

But what does "public scolding" mean? 

Are there any consequences?

Should not the state or DC bar take action against these attorneys?

What good is public scolding anyway?  It will not really be in the MSM domain.

What consequences? 

I assume there is no controlling legal authority.

Agree!  Where are the consequences?  The IRS commissioner, the Attorney General is Fast and Furious, the private email server and on and on.  Break the law, break the rules, no consequence.

Can't wait to see the upcoming pardon season.  No one went to jail, maybe there won't be any pardons.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36848


« Reply #481 on: May 25, 2016, 11:45:35 PM »

Judge Napolitano said today's IG report PROVES mens rea on Hillary's part and unambiguously predicts the FBI will recommend prosecution before the convention.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13611


« Reply #482 on: May 27, 2016, 08:30:19 AM »

Sub sailor's photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails
By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/27/16 08:07 AM EDT Updated 05/27/16 09:20 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

A Navy sailor is set to plead guilty 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, a source close to the case said.
Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.


No advance notice was given on the court’s docket, but a clerk’s office employee confirmed just after 9 a.m. Friday morning that a change of plea hearing was underway in the case.
Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. The classified information charge is part of the Espionage Act, but no charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion of espionage has been made.
The charges carry a maximum possible sentence of up to 30 years in prison, although the sailor’s sentence will likely be significantly less than that.
Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges against Saucier are out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”
Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.
“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.
By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.
Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.

However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.
Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.

However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.
“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”

Jury selection in Saucier’s case took place earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and opening arguments were scheduled to take place Tuesday, just after the Memorial Day holiday. Instead, a change-of-plea hearing is expected Friday. It was not immediately clear to what charge Saucier plans to plead guilty or what plea deal has been struck.
A defense attorney for Saucier and a spokesman for the prosecution did not respond to messages Thursday evening seeking comment for this story.

The investigation into Saucier kicked off in a rather unusual way in 2012 when a supervisor at a dump in Hampton, Connecticut, found a cellphone “on top of a pile of trash approximately three to four feet into the middle of a dumpster at the transfer station,” a court filing read. The supervisor showed the images to a retired Navy friend who turned over the device to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Pitcher acknowledges that his friend violated Navy rules if he took the photos as prosecutors allege, but he says such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn’t face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said.

“Two guys in our boat were caught taking photos in the engine room on the nuclear side of things. Basically, all that happened to them was they … lost a rank,” Pitcher said. “I’ve seen quite a few cases like this and never seen any handled like Kris’.”
secondary_sub_compy_1_ho_1160.jpg

Redacted and declassified cell-phone photos of nuclear sub’s engine room/Justice Department Court Filing
One factor that may have led investigators and prosecutors to handle Saucier’s case more aggressively is the way he responded when confronted about the photos. Court filings say he initially denied he took the pictures. Prosecutors say he later smashed his laptop, camera and memory card and threw them in the woods.
On top of that, Saucier had a handgun not registered to him in his home, prosecutors allege. After the FBI and NCIS showed up to question him, he allegedly cleaned it with bleach and stashed it under the dishwasher.
“They love the obstruction charges,” MacMahon said. “What they look for is something that’s aggravating.”
The defense attorney noted that CIA Director David Petraeus was accused of lying to the FBI when first confronted about keeping top secret notebooks at home and sharing them with his lover. Many lawyers believe that fact may have tipped the case against Petraeus from something that might have cost him his job to one that resulted in criminal prosecution.

Still, Petraeus was never charged with obstruction of justice. Before any charges were filed, his attorney reached a deal with prosecutors in which the retired general pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
A former military investigator who handled classified information cases said the military tends to treat such violations more seriously than civilian government agencies do and there are some valid reasons for that.

“It is exceedingly common for people in the military to be held accountable for classified information violations, much more so than in the civilian government or contractor world,” said Bill Leonard, former director of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office. “My sense is that’s just a reflection of the military’s emphasis on good order and discipline. ... It really does make a difference to the guy or gal next to you if [sensitive] information is compromised. That’s a very real consequence.”
secondary_sub_compy_2_ho_1160.jpg
Redacted and declassified cell-phone photos of nuclear sub’s engine room/Justice Department Court Filing

Since Saucier is still in the Navy, it’s unclear why he was charged in federal civilian court rather than sent to a court-martial. One possibility is that investigators may have considered charging others in civilian life with conspiring with the Navy sailor, but that has not happened.
Former Navy sailors said Saucier’s case also overlaps with a period during which the Navy was trying to strike a balance involving the boredom of submarine life during deployments as long as six months and the increasing popularity of smartphones, video-game players and similar devices.
While photography was always banned in engine rooms and taking a camera there would have been highly suspicious, ubiquitous phones with cameras have added new complexity to the situation, the sailors said.
With his friend set to plead guilty, Pitcher said he’s still convinced that Saucier is being treated more harshly than others in government of low or high rank.
“A lot of people were doing what Kris was doing,” Pitcher said. “Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment in comparison to other highly visible cases.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646#
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!