case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-09-26 06:46 pm

[ SECRET POST #3554 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3554 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #508.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
sarillia: (Default)

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

[personal profile] sarillia 2016-09-27 12:23 am (UTC)(link)
I thought the people whose job it is to decide that said she couldn't be charged with anything?

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:32 am (UTC)(link)
No, they said the average prosecutor wouldn't prosecute the case if she were an average defendant. They also stated there was clearly wrong doing on her part both directly and indirectly and that she improperly handled and disclosed classified information.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:34 am (UTC)(link)
No, they said the average prosecutor wouldn't prosecute the case if she were an average defendant.

I... so... what? How do you get from "the average prosecutor would not prosecute the case" to "she is literally guilty of treason"? What the fuck kind of mental leap did you take to cross that gap?

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:41 am (UTC)(link)
As Secretary of State she violated federal laws that led to the unlawful disclosure of classified information. That is treason according American federal law.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
She was not convicted of it. We have no way of knowing whether she would have been convicted of it. The only thing we know about the situation is that she was not prosecuted, and that in the judgment of an expert on the case, no reasonable person would prosecute for it under normal circumstances.

That does not add up to "guilty of treason".

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
I never said she'd been tried and found guilty though. I said she committed treason. She has even admitted she did it. No, she didn't say treason. She admitted she improperly handled classified government information. And according to American federal law, that is treason.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
that's not how American federal law works

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 01:01 am (UTC)(link)
Please stop confusing the justice system with law. They are not the same. One is a process for determining if a crime has been committed, by whom, and what to do about it. And the other is a law.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:37 am (UTC)(link)
She did not follow protocol with her e-mails. That was dumb. That deserved criticism.

That is also not treason. Do you really equate breaking a rule at work - even at a government job - to committing treason? Do you even know what treason is?

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:43 am (UTC)(link)
I worked for your government for six months as an IT tech and signed the same non-disclosure agreement that she did. And yes, it's treason. The legal contract states it's treason, your federal laws state it is treason. She didn't break a rule at work, she leaked classified information.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
For lo, it is written: never under any circumstances get into an argument about the Clinton e-mail scandal with someone who works in IT

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-27 12:58 am (UTC)(link)
Do you really not make a distinction between some yob at a desk and the Secretary of State? Do you really think they have the same responsibilities, the same standards, the same pay, same lifestyle? Because they don't. If I'd fucked up when I was at JAC working for the yanks, I'd spend the rest of my life in prison and my children wouldn't be allowed to travel anywhere in North America without authorisation from the American government. She got free coverage of her presidential campaign.

Re: Presidential Debate Reactions

(Anonymous) 2016-09-28 01:02 am (UTC)(link)
LOL. But most of the guys at my job who work IT are clowns so...