Glenn Greenwald breaks down the outrage over the FBI Clinton findings

For those who can't grasp why people are so incredulous and outraged at today's events, this is why:

...this case does not exist in isolation. It exists in a political climate where secrecy is regarded as the highest end, where people have their lives destroyed for the most trivial – or, worse, the most well-intentioned – violations of secrecy laws, even in the absence of any evidence of harm or malignant intent. And these are injustices that Hillary Clinton and most of her stalwart Democratic followers have never once opposed – but rather enthusiastically cheered. In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see; unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled, none of those was Top Secret. Nonetheless, this is what then-Secretary Clinton said in justifying her prosecution:

I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.

Comey’s announcement also takes place in a society that imprisons more of its citizens than any other in the world by far, for more trivial offenses than any western nation – overwhelmingly when they are poor or otherwise marginalized due to their race or ethnicity. The sort of leniency and mercy and prosecutorial restraint Comey extended today to Hillary Clinton is simply unavailable for most Americans.

What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry by-product of a criminal justice mentality in which – as I documented in my 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some – those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.

Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

Like the Wall Street tycoons whose systemic fraud triggered the 2008 global financial crisis, and like the military and political officials who instituted a worldwide regime of torture, Hillary Clinton is too important to be treated the same as everyone else under the law. “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,” Virginia defense attorney Edward MacMahontold Politico last year about secrecy prosecutions. Washington defense attorney Abbe Lowell has similarly denounced the “profound double standard” governing how the Obama DOJ prosecutes secrecy cases: “lower-level employees are prosecuted . . . because they are easy targets and lack the resources and political connections to fight back.”

The fact that Clinton is who she is undoubtedly what caused the FBI to accord her the massive benefit of the doubt when assessing her motives, when finding nothing that was – in the words of Comey – “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

But a system that accords treatment based on who someone is, rather than what they’ve done, is the opposite of one conducted under the rule of law. It is, instead, one of systemic privilege. As Thomas Jefferson put it in a 1784 letter to George Washington, the ultimate foundation of any constitutional order is “the denial of every preeminence.” Hillary Clinton has long been the beneficiary of this systemic privilege in so many ways, and today, she received her biggest gift from it yet.

That's it. Double standards. Privilege. Cronyism.

Much more at link.

www.blacklistednews.com...

edit on 5-7-2016 by JetBlackStare because: (no reason given)

I wonder what he thinks of Snowden now? He ran. First to China. Then to Russia.

I did just barely skim the article. I saw Manning's, but didn't see the guy who made Greenwald a household name.

a reply to: JetBlackStare

18 U.S.C. Section 793(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

a reply to: Snarl

Greenwald and Snowden collaborated after Greenwald left, "The Guardian," and both write articles for their website, "The Intercept."

Snowden's had plenty to say on his Twitter feed.

a reply to: infolurker

But, but she only acted "extremely careless," not "grossly negligent" as 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) defines...

a reply to: JetBlackStare

www.facebook.com...

Federal Law: Title 18. Section 2071 also applies here as well.

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Pretty clear cut that having an illegal email server used to knowingly send TS/SCI communications outside of the control of government security sits under this status as well.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: infolurker

But, but she only acted "extremely careless," not "grossly negligent" as 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) defines...

Yes, just like Bernie Madoff was "extremely careless" with his investment strategies.

a reply to: JetBlackStare


Ummm...


I hereby solemnly swear...to never again fall prey to the illusion that there is justice in the system...

There is only judgement...and that my friends is reserved for the plebe...

Therefore...from this day forward...I will faithfully execute opposition to any and all laws...rules...and regulations...

I hold myself outside of and above their scope...what is good for the elite...is wondrous indeed for me...

I affirm...that I will not submit myself to further subjugation...

I am done with the charade...and participate no more...

Signed

YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

NOW go buy a black rifle, THEY HATE that...

originally posted by: Snarl
I wonder what he thinks of Snowden now?
.

Well he should think of him as a fake I suppose if he heard the FBI today?

According to Snowden and some other sources the gov;t captured all email traffic going across the infrastructure and had no need to access users computer. Which is contrary to what the FBI disclosure today said, about being unable able to recover lost email.

If by some curse that crooked old crony Hillary wins the white house, I'm packing up and moving to Bikini Atoll, or I'll buy some lot next to the runoff water beside Fukushima's nuclear facility.
It won't hurt me worse than what we will be getting with Obama's third term.

a reply to: JetBlackStare

Everything Comey said was the presentation of clear grounds for indictment, and then at the end he flipped the table upside down and now there are people in prison, those who have lost security clearances, and those who have been fined who now need to seek redress from President Obama under the FBI's new finding of the meaning of the law ... because of course it is up to the FBI director to determine the meaning of law and to find "a question of intent" as substantial grounds for not engaging in an indictment.... Oh, it is such a ridiculous turn of events that its obvious scripting should lead to public outcry ... if the people weren't so doped up on antidepressants and fluoride on the brain.

a reply to: cavtrooper7



Ummm...I know...right...?

I hear they're frightened much more by the pink ones though...



YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

I think they really hate the ones painted like toys because it aids in an ambush.

a reply to: JetBlackStare

But a system that accords treatment based on who someone is, rather than what they’ve done, is the opposite of one conducted under the rule of law. It is, instead, one of systemic privilege.

We have been shown without a shadow of a doubt that we are no longer in control of our government.

This whole thing was nothing more than a charade, and we are being lulled into a state of acceptance of their control, because we are willing to believe the lie, that we have no other choice.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
If by some curse that crooked old crony Hillary wins the white house, I'm packing up and moving to Bikini Atoll, or I'll buy some lot next to the runoff water beside Fukushima's nuclear facility.
It won't hurt me worse than what we will be getting with Obama's third term.

Lol, I'll stay here in HK SAR.

Maybe it's really some kind of decoy for the real hammer to come down?

Stuff like this happens all the time on cop shows. lololol!!

Give the perp a false sense of security, then BAM! Up against the wall MoFo!!

hahahaha, oy!

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
If by some curse that crooked old crony Hillary wins the white house, I'm packing up and moving to Bikini Atoll, or I'll buy some lot next to the runoff water beside Fukushima's nuclear facility.
It won't hurt me worse than what we will be getting with Obama's third term.

Lol, I'll stay here in HK SAR.

Maybe it's really some kind of decoy for the real hammer to come down?

Stuff like this happens all the time on cop shows. lololol!!

Give the perp a false sense of security, then BAM! Up against the wall MoFo!!

hahahaha, oy!

One can only hope!
In "fantasy land" it would be great to think they passed on indicting HRC over the emails cause they are making a bigger better case in another way.

TPTB at some point should and will say "oh screw it" and toss her to her fate.
Karma's a bitch eventually.

I disagree with a lot of what he has to say. For example,

" Still, charging someone with a felony requires more than lying or unethical motives; it should require a clear intent to break the law along with substantial intended harm, none of which is sufficiently present here."

No, it sure doesn't. Intent does not matter one lick for the rest of us citizens. Ignorance of a law is also not a defense, anywhere in criminal/traffic law. It's just not. "I am pleading not guilty under the grounds that I was not aware of the speed limit. I didn't intend to break any law." You would be laughed out of court. This doesn't change just because the charge is a felony. Ridiculous.

Seemso as though Chelsea should get a full pardon with honors and reparations.. Unlikely, but true.