Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
If Petraeus got away with murder then Hillary will get away with genocide. Got that?So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
If Petraeus got away with murder then Hillary will get away with genocide. Got that?So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
If Petraeus got away with murder then Hillary will get away with genocide. Got that?So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
Absolutely I get it. Just don't whine when she gets slapped on the wrist.
I won't if she gets slapped with a chain saw.If Petraeus got away with murder then Hillary will get away with genocide. Got that?So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
Absolutely I get it. Just don't whine when she gets slapped on the wrist.
So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
He didn't get away with murder. Hyperbole much?
I believe he got off too easy. BUT that doesn't have jack shit to do with HIllary and her own case.
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?
Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.
The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."
Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters
It's called a plea deal. Patraeus WAS charged with a crime, and plead guilty to a lesser crime . Happens all the time.
That's my point. How does Hillary Clinton get charged at an appropriate level when David Petraeus got away with murder?
He didn't get away with murder. Hyperbole much?
I believe he got off too easy. BUT that doesn't have jack shit to do with HIllary and her own case.
You can't set a standard that low for an actual security crime for a high level person and actually think that someone isn't going to raise holy hell if you try to charge another high level person with a higher level crime. It just won't happen.
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
Well to be exact, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Also there are only two laws that apply to this investigation 18 USCA 1924(a) and 18 USCA 793(a) which is a more serious breach. The Supreme Court would view prosecution under the Espionage Act without sincere "Intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith" very poorly.
As Professor Laurie Levinson intoned
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
This case doesn't rise to the level of Petraeus and will not have the ending either.
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
Well to be exact, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Also there are only two laws that apply to this investigation 18 USCA 1924(a) and 18 USCA 793(a) which is a more serious breach. The Supreme Court would view prosecution under the Espionage Act without sincere "Intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith" very poorly.
As Professor Laurie Levinson intoned
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
This case doesn't rise to the level of Petraeus and will not have the ending either.
You can find some idiot who will give ANY opinion.
The fact is, that espionage does NOT require intent. Period.
Let me just be clear here.
I used to work for the government. I had a classified job (so no details will be posted) that often put me in places where my identity was unknown for the obvious reason that there were locals who would have liked to have gotten their hands on me if they knew my identity)
My life, and hundreds if not thousands of others like me, literally depended on people keeping that information secure. Clinton literally decided that her political career was more important than our lives when she refused to follow the rules and the law, and if a cabinet member isn't held to the law, why would a petty officer on a nuclear submarine be expected to follow said law, and then you have no one following the law.
Yes, I think Patraeus should have been punished more harshly, the fact that he wasn't has ZERO bearing on Clinton's case.
"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
Well to be exact, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Also there are only two laws that apply to this investigation 18 USCA 1924(a) and 18 USCA 793(a) which is a more serious breach. The Supreme Court would view prosecution under the Espionage Act without sincere "Intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith" very poorly.
As Professor Laurie Levinson intoned
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
This case doesn't rise to the level of Petraeus and will not have the ending either.
You can find some idiot who will give ANY opinion.
The fact is, that espionage does NOT require intent. Period.
Let me just be clear here.
I used to work for the government. I had a classified job (so no details will be posted) that often put me in places where my identity was unknown for the obvious reason that there were locals who would have liked to have gotten their hands on me if they knew my identity)
My life, and hundreds if not thousands of others like me, literally depended on people keeping that information secure. Clinton literally decided that her political career was more important than our lives when she refused to follow the rules and the law, and if a cabinet member isn't held to the law, why would a petty officer on a nuclear submarine be expected to follow said law, and then you have no one following the law.
Yes, I think Patraeus should have been punished more harshly, the fact that he wasn't has ZERO bearing on Clinton's case.
You're incorrect because the courts have traditionally viewed espionage (which Hillary Clinton is is no way being considered) as a very serious event. Here is the SC opinion of "Bad Faith"
"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)
Further, the email that Hillary had that was classified only became classified at a later point. Even Colin Powell defends her on this point.
Everyone who has held a security clearance regards it highly, but that doesn't mean there aren't mistakes made. David Petraeus' violations were far more serious and he got off with a $100,000 fine and two years probation. Hillary Clinton will not get anything more serious than that.
I don't believe she will be charged with anything. I'm leaning towards an aide or an underling being charged, but that's where it ends.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
Well to be exact, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Also there are only two laws that apply to this investigation 18 USCA 1924(a) and 18 USCA 793(a) which is a more serious breach. The Supreme Court would view prosecution under the Espionage Act without sincere "Intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith" very poorly.
As Professor Laurie Levinson intoned
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
This case doesn't rise to the level of Petraeus and will not have the ending either.
You can find some idiot who will give ANY opinion.
The fact is, that espionage does NOT require intent. Period.
Let me just be clear here.
I used to work for the government. I had a classified job (so no details will be posted) that often put me in places where my identity was unknown for the obvious reason that there were locals who would have liked to have gotten their hands on me if they knew my identity)
My life, and hundreds if not thousands of others like me, literally depended on people keeping that information secure. Clinton literally decided that her political career was more important than our lives when she refused to follow the rules and the law, and if a cabinet member isn't held to the law, why would a petty officer on a nuclear submarine be expected to follow said law, and then you have no one following the law.
Yes, I think Patraeus should have been punished more harshly, the fact that he wasn't has ZERO bearing on Clinton's case.
You're incorrect because the courts have traditionally viewed espionage (which Hillary Clinton is is no way being considered) as a very serious event. Here is the SC opinion of "Bad Faith"
"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)
Further, the email that Hillary had that was classified only became classified at a later point. Even Colin Powell defends her on this point.
Everyone who has held a security clearance regards it highly, but that doesn't mean there aren't mistakes made. David Petraeus' violations were far more serious and he got off with a $100,000 fine and two years probation. Hillary Clinton will not get anything more serious than that.
I actually agree, she won't get anything more serious than that. THAT however should absolutely disqualify her from holding any elected office, let alone POTUS.
Also, what the courts have traditionally ruled on has little bearing on what the actual law is. I despise any court that doesn't frown heavily on ANY person who breaks the law in regards to treason, and I despise courts who don't act appropriately to punish those who break the law.
That's the part that people don't get. The FBI isn't investigating whether there were crimes committed. There WERE crimes committed. They are investigating who should be charged with those crimes.
I don't see how she isn't charged with something. But yeah, Huma will probably take most of the fall.
Well to be exact, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Also there are only two laws that apply to this investigation 18 USCA 1924(a) and 18 USCA 793(a) which is a more serious breach. The Supreme Court would view prosecution under the Espionage Act without sincere "Intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith" very poorly.
As Professor Laurie Levinson intoned
"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."
Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal
This case doesn't rise to the level of Petraeus and will not have the ending either.
You can find some idiot who will give ANY opinion.
The fact is, that espionage does NOT require intent. Period.
Let me just be clear here.
I used to work for the government. I had a classified job (so no details will be posted) that often put me in places where my identity was unknown for the obvious reason that there were locals who would have liked to have gotten their hands on me if they knew my identity)
My life, and hundreds if not thousands of others like me, literally depended on people keeping that information secure. Clinton literally decided that her political career was more important than our lives when she refused to follow the rules and the law, and if a cabinet member isn't held to the law, why would a petty officer on a nuclear submarine be expected to follow said law, and then you have no one following the law.
Yes, I think Patraeus should have been punished more harshly, the fact that he wasn't has ZERO bearing on Clinton's case.
You're incorrect because the courts have traditionally viewed espionage (which Hillary Clinton is is no way being considered) as a very serious event. Here is the SC opinion of "Bad Faith"
"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)
Further, the email that Hillary had that was classified only became classified at a later point. Even Colin Powell defends her on this point.
Everyone who has held a security clearance regards it highly, but that doesn't mean there aren't mistakes made. David Petraeus' violations were far more serious and he got off with a $100,000 fine and two years probation. Hillary Clinton will not get anything more serious than that.
I actually agree, she won't get anything more serious than that. THAT however should absolutely disqualify her from holding any elected office, let alone POTUS.
Also, what the courts have traditionally ruled on has little bearing on what the actual law is. I despise any court that doesn't frown heavily on ANY person who breaks the law in regards to treason, and I despise courts who don't act appropriately to punish those who break the law.
Then the argument boils down to "Should a misdemeanor disqualify anyone from running for office" especially since we have had felons in office. It kind of makes it difficult to disqualify anyone when we allow the more serious violators to hold office.
