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.
WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.
But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.
This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.
Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.
So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.
Can you tell us who these men are, who you speak of being in prison, that were charged with Gross Negligence in the Espionage Act?Think of what harm Comey caused by first taking 10 minutes to explain why she was guilty then telling us that she shouldn't be prosecuted.
What does a man sitting in prison think about how Clinton was given a get out of jail card.
Comey has affirmed that the people are to big to jail.
Can you tell us who these men are, who you speak of being in prison, that were charged with Gross Negligence in the Espionage Act?Think of what harm Comey caused by first taking 10 minutes to explain why she was guilty then telling us that she shouldn't be prosecuted.
What does a man sitting in prison think about how Clinton was given a get out of jail card.
Comey has affirmed that the people are to big to jail.
Wow. This from the Huffington Post of all places.
Rich man’s law, poor man’s prison.
WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.
But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.
This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.
Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.
So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.
FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn't Prosecute The Rich And Powerful
You do know there are poor White people out here, don't you?Wow. This from the Huffington Post of all places.
Rich man’s law, poor man’s prison.
WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.
But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.
This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.
Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.
So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.
FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn't Prosecute The Rich And Powerful
Can you tell us who these men are, who you speak of being in prison, that were charged with Gross Negligence in the Espionage Act?Think of what harm Comey caused by first taking 10 minutes to explain why she was guilty then telling us that she shouldn't be prosecuted.
What does a man sitting in prison think about how Clinton was given a get out of jail card.
Comey has affirmed that the people are to big to jail.
I guess I don't understand? Who are wrongly in prison? Does it relate to the Espionage Act?Can you tell us who these men are, who you speak of being in prison, that were charged with Gross Negligence in the Espionage Act?Think of what harm Comey caused by first taking 10 minutes to explain why she was guilty then telling us that she shouldn't be prosecuted.
What does a man sitting in prison think about how Clinton was given a get out of jail card.
Comey has affirmed that the people are to big to jail.
Doesn't matter the charge, there are those wrongly in prison.
So the congress should strike the law? Why have a law the will never be enforced? Even if in 99 years it was never used this is the digital age and until recently having a very hackable server didn't exist. Comey showed how Mrs. Tuzla lied about everything concerning the server. All her apologists didn't lie because they believed her but they repeated the lies. To that there is not doubt.
Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?
Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?
Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?
Jake, was this imaginary poor person SecState?
YOU do NOT know she put others at risk...you do not know what was in these emails....Hillary wants them released because she believes there is nothing that critical in them...so does the State dept, but the CIA or the intelligence community says they are still secret.... who knows why?OK, since folks are saying there are others that had private servers, and there are, can anyone name one of them that had a private server that was vulnerable to hacking and was running for president? She put people's lives at risk doesn't that mean something?
I read that the State Department with relatively protected servers, was hacked in to 45 times just this past year....Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?
OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)
I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.
Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.
I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.
