In 1868, the treason trial of Jefferson Davis was pending. He certainly did levy war against the United States, which is the constitutional definition. See Article III, ยง 3. Nonetheless, the President decided to issue a blanket amnesty to help heal the nation's wounds, and that was the end of the case. See Case of Davis, 7 F. Cas. 63, 102.
Our country today is not as bitterly divided as it was then, but healing is still in order.
As former Attorney General Mukasey explained in the Wall Street Journal in July, the evidence against Hillary Clinton clearly fulfills the requirements of the two criminal statutes involved, and FBI Director Comey's statement that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the charges was just wrong. Mr. Mukasey, after all, is a reasonable prosecutor.
Even so, there are times when other considerations come into play so that a prosecution should not be pursued even though fully justified on the facts and the law. President-elect Trump has evidently decided that this is one of them.
Damian Paletta and Byron Tau have this story in the Wall Street Journal.
And while candidates should generally keep their campaign promises, it is sometimes better to let those go also.
Our country today is not as bitterly divided as it was then, but healing is still in order.
As former Attorney General Mukasey explained in the Wall Street Journal in July, the evidence against Hillary Clinton clearly fulfills the requirements of the two criminal statutes involved, and FBI Director Comey's statement that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the charges was just wrong. Mr. Mukasey, after all, is a reasonable prosecutor.
Even so, there are times when other considerations come into play so that a prosecution should not be pursued even though fully justified on the facts and the law. President-elect Trump has evidently decided that this is one of them.
Damian Paletta and Byron Tau have this story in the Wall Street Journal.
And while candidates should generally keep their campaign promises, it is sometimes better to let those go also.
None of that is to excuse Mrs. Clinton's gross recklessless with classified information. When I was in the military, a member of my unit was given an "Article 15," a kind of small-claims court-martial, for a far lesser offense with material of far lower classification. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had committed anything approaching the scale of Mrs. Clinton's offense I would have had the book thrown at me.
I hope and expect that in the incoming administration all appointees with access to classified information are very thoroughly briefed on what is required of them and made to demonstrate their understanding before they take office. As for people so haughty and arrogant that they think the rules don't apply to them, it is best to simply not appoint them.
I hope and expect that in the incoming administration all appointees with access to classified information are very thoroughly briefed on what is required of them and made to demonstrate their understanding before they take office. As for people so haughty and arrogant that they think the rules don't apply to them, it is best to simply not appoint them.
Does the final paragraph apply to the president-elect?
I understand. The Secretary of State sent classified emails in a way that was potentially insecure=prison. The President Elect lobbies foreign leaders with his daughter for advantages for his business=yawn.
The topic of the post is the criminally reckless mishandling of classified information, whether this instance should be prosecuted, and what should be done to prevent recurrence. No inference is validly drawn from the fact that a post on a particular topic does not wander off into other topics.