Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyldfire | Hacker News Reader

I can't tell if you're joking or not, so I'll bite: Comey said that they didn't have the elements that normally support a case such as malicious intent or efforts to obstruct the investigation. [his words not mine]

Of course, classified information existed on the servers and it stands to reason that the investigation report itself could contain classified material.

View on HN

I was joking, and denying the obvious (which you stated).

It's just infuriating that an ordinary citizen like myself can get a ticket for speeding, even though my intention was not to harm anyone and I wasn't aware the signs had changed a few miles back. I'm convinced the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, Kenndedys, etc literally have a different set of laws that apply to them.

You are right, unfortunately. An ordinary citizen would have been punished for this. The FBI director has said as much. This is an excerpt from the director's statement to the press:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: 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. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

Speeding laws are written such that it is a violation regardless of intent or reason.

So too are the laws on classified information. I would have been in jail months ago had I done what she did.

exabrial is correct; there is, and has been for decades, a double standard between what the politicos can get away with and what we GS plebs can do.

> exabrial is correct; there is, and has been for decades, a double standard between what the politicos can get away with and what we GS plebs can do.

s/politicos/connected politicos/

If Joe Public Servant tries this he goes to jail too ... Only the connected elites are immune.

Joe Public Servant is one of the "GS plebs" I was referring to. Sure, some junior Congresscritter is going to get in more trouble than a SecState, but it will still be quite a bit less trouble than the random unelected staffer who will likely get scapegoated for said Congresscritter's transgression.

I don't think that's right. Most laws require a trial. Speeding does not require a trial: you are guilty if a cop says you were speeding. You can appeal, of course.

I was strictly addressing the parent's comparison about speeding tickets. They are not like other laws.

You're not guilty just because a cop says so. You have a right to a trial for every speeding ticket. Most people just waive that right.

I stand corrected. Sounds like you are technically not guilty unless you waive a trial.

That is not correct. When you return the ticket, they make you check a box on the form indicating your plea, either "guilty, here's my money" or "not guilty, give me a trial."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com