Double standard?

The FBI has arrested a contractor for the NSA for allegedly mishandling classified material, The Wall Street Journal is reporting.

Harold Thomas Martin, 51, of Glen Burnie, Md., has been charged with theft of government property and unauthorized removal of classified materials.

WSJ reports that the “FBI began investigating the apparent leak of sophisticated hacking tools that appeared to be NSA source code designed to help penetrate the computer networks of foreign nation adversaries like Russia and China.”

Material labeled secret was found in Martin’s home.

Now, what was it Hillary Clinton did in her home in New York?

31 comments on “Double standard?

  1. Nyp says:

    You are suggesting that Hillary Clinton stolen source codes and provided them to foreign parties?
    How dumb

  2. Barbara says:

    Yes there is definitely a double standard. The legacy of the Obama administration with be the complete erosion of the rule of law. A very corrupt Justice Department and FBI. The laws that apply to everyone else do not apply to members of this administration. And the Republican Congress has done nothing to hold them accountable.

  3. Steve says:

    It appears to me they are not bringing any espionage charges against against Martin, so trying to say what Hillary did rises to the level of espionage is not an equal comparison, nyp.
    For now, all you have is conjecture.
    At this point what Martin did is very similar to what Clinton did. Until new charges are filed against Martin, the two basically did the same thing, but one is getting a pass.

  4. nyp says:

    the guy stole top-secret source code from the NSA, for heaven’s sake.
    You people are unreal.

  5. Stole or took it home?

  6. Steve says:

    She directed email to an off government system.
    Same thing, nyp.

    In fact, anyone who emailed her (from a government device) while knowing it was going to a device not within the authorized, secured network is also guilty of the same crime of removing official documents from government secured locations.
    Her private server could take out literally thousands of government employees along with her if they actually followed the law and applied it equally to her as they are to Martin (to date)
    So far, neither Martin nor Clinton intended anything other than to make it easier to do work while away from the office. But that is illegal. For Martin, Clinton, my own brother (DSS) and every other federal worker and military member.

    But one person is getting a pass.

  7. nyp says:

    that’s it — he just wanted to take the top secret NSA source code to his home office.

  8. Steve says:

    For now, that’s all they can allege.
    Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

    Interesting the FBI decided not to file charges on Clinton. That leaves the door open for future efforts, should more evidence present itself. At least until the ten year statute of limitations ends.

  9. Steve says:

    I know you love jumping to conclusions, nyp.
    Glad we could be here to pull you back from the edge!

  10. Rincon says:

    The details matter. Did this guy appear to have accidentally taken a flash drive home because he forgot it was in his pocket or did he intentionally hide the data while spiriting it out of the facility? Big difference. In the first situation, even charging the guy with a crime would be a stretch. In the second, the charge of treason may not be too much.

  11. Steve says:

    Well, Rincon, Hillary definitely did hers with full intent of taking official communication and documents outside government security.

    So she gets a pass?

  12. Barbara says:

    The FBI and the Justice Department engaged in a cover-up on the Clinton investigation from the start. Hillary’s aides were allowed to set in on her interview even though they were “witnesses” or “co-conspirators” – pick your terminology. Additionally, they were offered immunity and their laptops were destroyed per an agreement. If the FBI conducted all investigations as they did this one, no one would ever be arrested for anything. Pure corruption. There will be no prosecution as all the evidence has been conveniently destroyed with the approval of the Justice Department.

  13. Vernon Clayson says:

    Barbara’s comment is the only logical one on this post. Can’t say how long I’ve read Mr. Mitchell’s post, many years, and nyp has never failed to be the most snarky egotistical liberal writer on the site.

  14. nyp says:

    So James Comey (a Republican, and one of the most respected public servants in America,) the entire FBI and the entire Justice Department are engaged in a massive cover-up and conspiracy with the Hillary Clinton campaign. A conspiracy so immense. Simply massive.

    And you wonder why the Republican Party has been captured by a grifter like Donald Trump.

    PS: hey Vern — are you still making racist remarks about President Obama?

  15. Rincon says:

    Two words: Malicious intent. The feds say that the “second Snowden” hoarded government secrets for years. There is no legitimate reason for this so far as I can tell. In Clinton’s case, she was required, as part of her job, to handle classified material at all hours of the day, wherever she happened to be. Apples and oranges.

    Taking official communication and documents out of government buildings is not an issue. Every Congressman does it on a regular basis. The question is whether Clinton should be punished for doing the same thing that her predecessors had done and for having a small number of classified Emails, some or all which were not clearly marked as such. As I understand it, many were labeled with only a small letter C in the corner. Shouldn’t a classified document be stamped classified or have it marked in big, unmistakable print?

    In addition, we should ask the nature of the classified Emails. My mother used to handle classified material at Argonne National Laboratory for years and she said that many documents were labelled classified for no legitimate reason, but because her boss wasn’t sure if perhaps he should. If there was the slightest doubt, he always just went ahead and labeled it classified. I’m sure that applies to the State Department as well. There’s a big difference between an Email that mentions a conversation about an official from some obscure country and the formulas used to hack the computers of our enemies.

    It’s not as simple as just crucifying everyone who breaks a rule. The Bunkerville boys clearly committed crimes. They commandeered government buildings, damaged government property and threatened to kill anyone who got in their way, but many here feel that the government should have looked the other way. But we should crucify Clinton because she was sloppy with her paperwork?

  16. Steve says:

    Your first line is prejudging to the max.
    They need to file charges. So far they haven’t.
    Meanwhile 50,000 emails were directed to an unsecure server. All government correspondence is to be kept within the protection of the security set up to make it safe.
    Same thing with company email, it stays within the safety of the companies own security.
    Bunkerville wasn’t in Oregon.

    But Hillary is was just peachy keen in your book.

  17. Rincon says:

    The thrust of Thomas’ article was that Clinton held guilt similar to that alleged of our “second Snowden” I am responding to his prejudgement on his terms. I think that’s fair.

    I was referring to the Bundy clan and their ilk as the Bunkerville boys. I guess I don’t actually know if Ammon and his gang were there. I had presumed it, perhaps incorrectly, but as you are so fond of saying about Patrick, you are merely deflecting my statement and have not addressed it. Let’s rephrase it, so you can get past the offensive inaccuracies:

    The Ammon Bundy gang clearly committed crimes. They commandeered government buildings, damaged government property and threatened to kill anyone who got in their way, but many here feel that the government should have looked the other way. But we should crucify Clinton because she was sloppy with her paperwork?

  18. Steve says:

    “second Snowden”

    Show me the filed charges. Until that happens, Clinton did the same thing Martin did.

    I wasn’t referring to Oregon. You have now conflated the whole thing as one incident. Which the two are not.
    Bunkerville is not Oregon. Bunkerville happened on private property and the protest spilled out onto public lands and highways. The Bunkerville protest was peaceful. Even with the armed protesters.

    The Oregon incident was a very different matter, the people you described were not wanted in that community, commandeered federal buildings and vehicles and they became violent when confronted.

    The two incidents are very different even if a few of the people involved were part of both.

  19. Rincon says:

    Martin has yet to be charged. Clinton was exonerated of hers. It is unreasonable to consider the two equivalent at this time.

    As I clearly stated, I was referring to Oregon. The Ammon Bundy gang. Get it?

    As for your not referring to Oregon, I believe I was the one who brought it up – and I was referring to Oregon. Although Bunkerville was different, the five leaders were charged with a total of 16 felonies. Although it will have to wait until the trial, there is little basis for claiming that these guys are a bunch of choir boys at this time.

    You continue to deflect. Do you feel the government should have looked the other way in Oregon and/or Nevada and that Clinton should be imprisoned for her so called crime?

  20. Steve says:

    No Clinton was not exonerated. The FBI decided not to file charges.
    That means charges could still be filed, within the statute of limitations.
    Exoneration is a result of being adjudicated innocent, not just “not guilty” but innocent. Innocent is one complete step above “Not Guilty” and is the definition of exoneration.

    Since Martin has yet to be charged with anything, trying to call him the “second Snowden” is a bit prejudicial, to say the least, Rincon.

    Charges not filed is police saying they might not be able to win a prosecution. OR Comey simply worried he might become another in a long line of mysterious deaths!

  21. Steve says:

    As for the “Bundy clan” you conflated Oregon with Bunkerville as though the two were one.

  22. Rincon says:

    Are you still stuck on that? I recognize the two Bundy fiascos as separate events. Always have.

    You’re picking nits again with the exonerate thing. “To exonerate someone is to declare him not guilty of criminal charges.” The FBI did not decide that there was insufficient evidence to convict. They decided that no crime had been committed in the first place. If no crime was committed, then Clinton is exonerated.

    But even if you cannot agree that exonerate is a proper term here, it’s irrelevant. The point, which still stands, was that Clinton and Martin are apples and oranges. Whether Clinton was “exonerated” or just not charged is irrelevant If prosecutors decide not to charge Martin, then a comparison may become valid.

  23. Steve says:

    Comey did not say anything about no crime being committed, in fact he was clear he believes she most certainly did commit several crimes in using a private server for emails.
    What he said was they couldn’t prove it in a court. “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
    Very different from what you call exoneration.

  24. nyp says:

    that is all that a prosecutor will every say about an investigation.

  25. Bill says:

    Snark and counter-snark. If those who blindly see nothing wrong in what Hillary did with the private server and government secrets, obstruction of the Congressional investigation and lying to the Congress and the American people, then, no amount of logical argument will convince them that their “hero” did no wrong. The Justice Department, via Comey and Lynch exercised egregious prosecutorial discretion for as yet unknown reasons in the decision not to refer this matter to a grand jury. I doubt if you can get the Hillary supporters to even acknowledge that her actions and the Justice Department actions have at least the appearance of impropriety.

  26. Rincon says:

    Who says there was “nothing wrong” about Clinton’s Emails? I just said there was no crime. The FBI report made it clear that similar cases in the past have not been prosecuted. I have not seen a Conservative reply demonstrating that to be false – and if they could, you know they would.

    By the same token sexual assault is a crime and Trump admitted to it in a recording. I don’t advocating trying him for it, even though technically, a crime was committed. I also don’t advocate jailing jaywalkers. I try not to change my standards just because I don’t like the perp.

  27. Steve says:

    Bill Clinton has been accused of rape. Not by conservatives, by the woman accusing him.
    Does this mean a crime was committed?

    OR does a lack of prosecution mean no crime was committed?

    In either case, Brian Krolicki should be the honorable senator from Nevada instead of Harry Reid.

    You see, accusation alone carries powerful consequences. In Clinton’s case, she is above prosecution for the crimes not prosecuted, but Krolicki was prosecuted and the charges were dismissed. Krolicki is out, but Clinton is in. Krolicki was shown more than not guilty, the charges were judged false. Clinton squeezes out of prosecution by the skin of her teeth and you claim she is exonerated….


  28. Rincon says:

    I don’t intend to find out much about Krolicki. He’s Nevada’s problem, but to prove a crime was committed by someone, it is usually accepted that the prosecution must show an adequate motive to have committed the misdeed. Are you saying that the motivation for Clinton’s high crime was one of convenience only? That alone makes for a very weak case. The rest we have discussed. Your hate for anything Clinton blinds you to the difference between poor judgement and criminal behavior.

    Accusations with insufficient evidence to prove them were the stock in trade in medieval Europe, hence, our mantra that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not so in today’s partisan atmosphere. Congratulations for carrying on a grand old tradition.

  29. Steve says:

    Man, I have made it clear in these forums, a Clinton presidency would be the lesser of the two evils currently being offered by our “two” party system.

    My clearly stated concerns are that she gets a pass while others who do the same thing don’t.

    And you LIKE that she gets the pass.

  30. Rincon says:

    I don’t think she got a pass. She has been found guilty in the court of public opinion, but according to the FBI report, people under similar circumstances also were not charged in the past. Show me anyone else convicted under similar circumstances and then maybe we’ll call the FBI wrong.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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