Did Clinton violate the same law she accuses Snowden of violating?

Clinton being watched by the press. (Getty photo)

Asked in the Tuesday night debate about Edward Snowden, who leaked classified information about NSA surveillance, Hillary Clinton said he should face the music.

CLINTON: He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.

COOPER: Should he do jail time?

CLINTON: In addition — in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.

Clinton’s use of unsecured email server to send and receive classified information involves the same crime with which Snowden is accused. Her important information likely fell into the wrong hands. Should she face the music?

Here is what Snowden has said about Hillary:


39 comments on “Did Clinton violate the same law she accuses Snowden of violating?

  1. Steve says:

    Bernie Sanders sez, nothing to see here. Move along (org) and lets talk about spending money we all claim to make Wall Street pay for!
    Funny, they all claim to hate Wall Street but every one of their proposals claims to rely totally on that very symbol of derision!

    And Sanders tuition “free” college idea is paid for by taxing all “financial trades”…do you know who THAT will hit the hardest?
    Absolutely EVERYONE with ANY form of IRA…it even hits PERS. It hits every small investor. The big players will pay the least, if anything at all. Anyone buying what Sanders is selling is buying snake oil.

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    Can’t bear to watch these staged acts, have to depend on the media to tell me how great and well qualified Hillary Clinton is. It was probably just coincidence that the monitor was a flaming homo.

  3. Nyp says:

    “A flaming homo”

    I bet that latest bit of sick bigotry on his blog will again go unremarked by Thomas Mitchell.

  4. Nyp says:

    Still, it is good to have people like Vern , who are willing to articulate what conservatives really think but are usually reluctant to say.

    Very clarifying.

  5. After stating up front that the way they (CNN) were going to approach the Democrat debate would be much different than Jake Tapper approached the Republican debate…I actually thought Anderson Cooper did a pretty fair job as the moderator.


  6. As to the question…”Did Hillary violate the very same law she accuses Snowden of violating”…all I know is that almost every claim or excuse Hillary initially put forth about her nefarious personal email system while Secretary of State…has been proven to be false. So no Bernie…that isn’t going to go away anytime soon!


  7. Rincon says:

    “…do you know who THAT will hit the hardest?
    Absolutely EVERYONE with ANY form of IRA…it even hits PERS. It hits every small investor. The big players will pay the least, if anything at all.”

    Have you been smoking something Steve? Or am I missing something important? Most pension funds and smaller investors trade infrequently. Since financial transaction taxes are levied primarily on a per share basis, the richest will clearly pay the most. A financial transaction tax would also inhibit the activities of the parasites that engage in microsecond computerized trading. That would be great for the economy in the opinion of at least 1.000 economists who signed a petition in favor of it. Besides, the people with pensions and IRA’s are having some of their tax responsibilities paid by those who can’t afford such luxuries since their profits are nontaxable – i.e., they are subsidized by those who can afford it least.

    The fact that investors are willing to pay $300 million to tunnel through the Appalachians to place a fiberoptic cable that will save a few milliseconds ought to give you a clue. They clearly expect to make up for that $300 million and come away with a profit as well. And who will benefit? No one at all except the traders. The rest of us will be ceding our potential profits to them.

  8. nyp says:

    Nope, silence from Thomas Mitchell in response to bigoted remarks on the comments portion of his blog.
    Just silence.

  9. I am not the collective’s mother.

  10. Steve says:

    Rincon makes a great point, financial transactions are not the buying and selling of financial products like ETF’s and bonds and all the rest of those things that regularly get re aligned in every form of IRA in existence….. You funny.

  11. Barbara says:

    “People with pensions and IRAs are having some of their tax responsibilities paid by those who can’t afford such luxuries since their profits are nontaxable – i.e., they are subsidized by those who can afford it least.

    I do not understand this statement. Pensions are indeed taxable as ordinary income as are Traditional IRAs. Tax responsibilities are spelled out in the IRS code, and no one has a “responsibility to pay taxes other than as mandated by law. If you mean taxpayers are on the hook for overly generous pensions, I would agree but somehow I don’t think this is what you had in mind.

  12. nyp says:

    You respond to all kinds of comments publically displayed on this blog. But when one of your bigoted followers such as Vern Clayson or “Athos” refers to “flaming homos,” or when they call the President of the United States “a common Chicago street hustler,” or when they claim that black people are genetically inferior, you utter not a word. Not a single word.

    I must conclude that you either find nothing objectionable in such remarks on your blog or else that you quietly approve of them.

  13. Steve says:

    Nyp wants to create thought police on another person’s blog, typical.

  14. nyp says:

    You believe that denouncing the racism and homophobia that periodically appears on this blog = “creating thought police.”

    I disagree.

  15. Steve says:

    You believe you have the right to tell others what to think.
    I disagree.

  16. Barbara says:

    Don’t you think the readers of this blog can decide for themselves and form their own opinions on the validity of comments without being told what to think by Mr. Mitchell? Your conclusion that if someone doesn’t respond to a comment means they approve of what is being said is asinine. Let people read and ponder without all the chatter.

  17. nyp says:

    Thomas Mitchell choses what to respond to and what not to respond to. He chooses not to say anything at all about the racist and homophobic comments made by his long-time followers. Even when specifically asked about it, he refuses to utter a word of condemnation. It is logical conclude that he really doesn’t have an objection to people who talk about “flaming homos” or who claim that black people are genetically inferior. Like Republican politicians, he doesn’t have the guts to make such statements himself, of course. If I were running a public blog I would denounce and ban from the blog anyone who made sexually explicit, racist or homophobic remarks. But Thomas Mitchell would not.

    How about you, Barbara? What do you think about Vern Clayson calling Anderson Cooper a “flaming homo” and President Obama “a common street hustler”?

  18. Steve says:

    If you cannot say anything nice don’t say anything at all.

    Remember that? OR were you taught being thought police is both good and proper.

  19. nyp says:

    So criticizing someone like Vern Clayson who talks about “flaming homos” = not saying anything nice.

  20. Steve says:

    Nope. you have all the right in the world to “criticize” others.

    What you DO NOT have the right to do is to require others to “criticize” at your demand.

  21. Rincon says:

    “Rincon makes a great point, financial transactions are not the buying and selling of financial products like ETF’s and bonds and all the rest of those things that regularly get re aligned in every form of IRA in existence….. You funny.’ Everything I said applies to ETF’s, bonds, and a host of other investments. Why would you assume otherwise?

  22. Steve says:

    As i said, IRA’s are realigned regularly. Meaning they would pay this tax. Small investors buy and sell stocks based on profit and loss. (I am doing this myself) As one of those people I would be impacted by this tax.
    PERS uses investments to grow their plan.

    Your claim that these managers trade “infrequently” is flawed. They trade as needed to keep the funds growing. They had better be trading, or they are being paid to sit and look at a monitor while volatility steals value.

  23. Rincon says:

    “Pensions are indeed taxable as ordinary income as are Traditional IRAs.” I have to agree but only in the technical sense. In reality, they are close, but only close, to being tax free. In real, inflation adjusted dollars, pensions and IRA’s are taxed at a far lower rate because the tax is payed with far cheaper dollars due to inflation, often 40 or 50 years from the time the income is produced, resulting in an extreme discount on the tax due. In addition, payment can be delayed for decades while the entire sum deposited earns money and the tax that is paid is often paid when many people are in a group with a lower tax rate than when the original income was earned. When you get to the bottom line, only a small fraction of the tax will be paid that would have been due had there been no pension/IRA.

  24. Steve says:

    oh…so it’s all good to hook middle class retirees for money to pay for Sanders “free” tuition proposal!

    Not a one of that demographic is part of the “one percent”.

  25. Winston Smith says:

    DARPA: If I am disgusted with a post, everyone else should condemn it too, or they obviously agree with it.

    SANDERS: I won’t bring up your crimes, Hillary, if you don’t, after all, I don’t want to be seem like a bully and hurt your feelings during a debate 🙂

    CLINTON: I won’t question the Constitutionality of any of your silly-ass socialist ideas, Bernie, or how we’ll pay for them, because I may be embracing them in 12 months, in order to thrill the Democratic Party base that is bored as hell with me.

    SMITH: At least Vern didn’t say, “bleedin’ faggot” or “raging pooftah”. Personally, I think referring to Anderson Cooper as a (former) CIA agent is much more of an insult.

  26. Rincon says:

    Free tuition is a bad idea, but claiming that a tax on the trading of various securities will tax the middle class more per person than the rich, who hold vastly more securities, is ludicrous on the face of it. Unlikely claims require great proof and I see none whatsoever.

  27. Steve says:

    “tax the middle more per person”

    According to Sanders. the rich are supposed to pay for the whole thing. Everyone else is supposed to get free stuff.

  28. Steve says:

    Watch it Winston, I have CIA people in my ancestry!
    We only found out after they were well into retirement.

  29. Rincon says:

    Did Robin Hood give away free stuff, or was he merely returning it to the proper owners?

  30. Barbara says:

    Rincon Actually people who defer taxes will probably end up paying more as I’m sure tax rates will be higher in the future than today (especially if Dems and statists get elected). They will probably be in a higher rate with less deductions (no mortgage, children, business expenses, etc). If given the option, I think it is better to pay the piper now rather than later.

    NYP – I am happy people are free to say whatever they want on this blog -even you. It helps me gage their personalities and intellectually capabilities. Having known some “common street hustlers” in my time, I have found some to be very entertaining and engaging – much more so than President Obama. In fact, President Obama would not make my list of people I would love to meet some day.

    I imagine some on this blog would refer to me as a right wing nut, tea bagger, or worse – but I really could care less. I imagine Cooper feels the same way, but if it offends you than by all means speak up. I only feel the need to correct facts, not emotions. And at times even that becomes tiresome.

  31. Steve says:

    I believe Robin of Locksley was a full fledged member of the aristocracy. When returned home from battle, his house was destroyed and family ejected from its lands.
    When the king returned, his fight was over because the usurpers were removed from power and Robin of Locksley became one with the returned government, a benevolent monarchy. As the story goes.

    He was one of the proper owners. Today, many people have the same feelings.

  32. Winston Smith says:

    Robin was a tax protester, just like Lady Godiva, except with clothes…

  33. Steve says:

    Nope, I think he was fighting to get his government back from the crooks who stole it.

  34. Rincon says:

    Barbara, you’re such a pessimist. Income tax on the rich is far less today than it was 40 or 50 years ago and will probably continue to fall since the rich have control of the government. Unless the tax hike you presume is astronomical, I think if you do the math, you’ll find that the tax free income and the effects of inflation will far outweigh any future tax increase. In addition, you presume that income tax will increase as opposed to every other kind of tax. Conservatives would prefer a value added tax and Liberals a fossil fuel tax, so it’s possible that income tax will actually drop. Economists say it would be better for the economy. Your argument presumes that you can predict the future. Until I see a headline reading “Psychic wins lottery”, I’ll keep my own presumption that humans generally aren’t very good at that.

  35. Rincon says:

    So if the people decide to tax the rich at a higher rate, are they more like Robin Hood or Jesse James?

  36. Those people would be more like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin (or Paul Krugman)…they bear no resemblance to Robin Hood or Jesse James.

  37. Rincon says:

    Robin Hood wasn’t into redistribution? That’s news to me. Marx and Lenin were not totally wrong, even though their system was fatally flawed. They saw extreme wealth in the wealthy class, while much of the work force, their employees, lived in abject poverty. They correctly surmised that eventually, the proletariat would become angry and take action. They were right up to that point, and much of the unrest they predicted occurred, but they failed to foresee unions, trust busting and Henry Ford, who doubled his employees’ pay over a single weekend. Their efforts and those of many others ushered in the creation of a vibrant middle class. Alas, history repeats itself. Today, the middle class is quickly shriveling while the aristocracy is amassing vast wealth with no sign of a letup. Once again, the proletariat is becoming angry, but no one can predict what the result will be. Hopefully, it won’t be revolution or even worse, domination by the aristocracy through the use of force.

  38. Rincon says:

    It just occurred to me that most people feel that unions were a necessary balance to the excesses of their wealthy employers, yet they were correcting the same kinds of excesses that we see today. Do you Conservatives feel that the unions were evil; that they forcefully redistributed wealth that really belonged to the fabulously wealthy industrialists? If redistribution is bad today, it should have been bad in the early days of the unions as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s