Tom Fitton: There is NO RussiaGate WITHOUT the Clinton Email Scandal!

MSgt Steve Sweeney - a young kid making a really dumb one-time decision Vs. an old woman making really dumb planned, sustained, decisions (and then trying to cover it up and never really owning up to it). Leadership comes from the top, right? At least he ultimately pled guilty.

And I’d ask, with second, third, fourth order effects. Who was more likely to be exploited by foreign actors? The uncleared personnel to whom Clinton regularly sent digital classified information, or little Timmy and Janey Saucier, after seeing pictures of the inside of a boat in a few years?

Yes, they dropped the hammer. Prison, supervised release, OTH discharge. Crimes, like classifications, can be overcharged. Was he wrong? Absolutely. Did he do something worse than Secretary Clinton? Absolutely not. Her actions carried a far greater risk for exploitation. If you disagree, please explain.

Am I upset? Yes and no. It’s his prerogative, and he can issue pardons as he sees fit. However, I think there are other folks in the system that are more deserving and have waited far longer, yet Saucier was pardoned solely to serve a political cause that primarily helped the President. If there wasn’t a political upside for the President, I don’t think he would have issued this pardon, and I find that particularly distasteful.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - I’d bet my b*lls...I’d bet your b*lls, even...that the #4 person in order of Presidential line of Succession is a higher value intel target than PO1 John Q. Anyone. And when the Secretary of State becomes known to start sending any type of classified information to uncleared personnel on an unsecured, civilian server, not only does her target value go up, but so does the value of everyone in her 2nd, 3rd and even 4th and 5th level contacts. Far greater than PO1 Anyone, no matter what his 6 digital photos were taken of.

(*again, if you disagree, please elaborate.)

I agree with the ‘out of the box’ thinking, however, in her case, the mission didn’t always get accomplished, and she got caught. And it was illegal. (Regardless of her rank, or if it was overclassified, or etc etc, willingly sending classified information to people without clearance is illegal).

“If they had any actual evidence of wrongdoing, they would prosecute..” Please tell me you’re not that naive. Double standards exist for those in power. It’s not exactly a new thing. It’s not unique to the government. I’m not anti-Clinton. I’m anti-corrupt, regardless of where the corruption comes from, left right or center. It just happens to be that we’re discussing her at this moment.

I guess I’m a bit more cynical. But there’s a reason why high level officials are rarely prosecuted or punished, even after another party assumes power. It’s because the new party in power knows that it’s also corrupt (and won’t always be in control). And if they start hanging their predecessors, then it’ll be open season on them when their successors catch them doing something crooked.

So they bluster and Sabre-rattle and do the rah-rah stuff to rally the troops, but everyone knows nothing will happen. (Newsflash, President Trump won’t see a day in prison. If the House impeaches him, he won’t be convicted.). Why do they do it? Like a magician waving his right hand to distract you from what his left hand is hiding. To keep folks occupied, too busy hating each other, because heaven forbid we come together and start collectively hating them, because the majority of them are crooked as sh*t.

Lies are big determining factor in credibility. Please challenge me to give even one example of lies told by Mrs. Clinton, big or small, over her many decades in public service.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - “I believe her use of a private server was done for professional expediency, and not for some nefarious reason or for personal gain. She wasn't selling secrets to foreign agents, or lining her pockets in some way. She wasn't attempting to increase her prestige or impress her friends. And, she likely incurred personal expense in setting up and maintaining the server.”

I agree. But that’s irrelevant. Just because she wasn’t trying to do anything with bad intentions doesn’t mean there were potential bad consequences. Again, professional expediency doesn’t justify the fact that her 2nd, 3rd, 4th level contacts (who had no clearance or encryption) could then be targeted, so as to to reach the main target, Secretary of State.

“I believe the prosecutions and indictments of Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Kilimnik, and even Stone sort of shoot the "if you don't prosecute me, I won't prosecute you" theory out of the water.“ I disagree. Before all this mess started, John Q. Public didn’t know who Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Kilimnik, and even Stone even were. In their ecosystem, they were the low hanging fruit.

“They impeached Bill Clinton for a fling with an intern”. Negative. President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. If he had simply come clean about his affair at the beginning, he probably wouldn’t have been impeached. (Affairs are a proud presidential tradition. And note, he wasn’t convicted. No harm, no foul.

I agree, lots of political smear has been tossed both ways, and Mrs Clinton isn’t immune. However, don’t fall into the argumentative fallacy of repeatedly attempting to discredit the source. I get it, you’re not ‘right-wing’. Several times, you've mentioned Fox News, ridiculous Uranium One, etc. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but it certainly reveals your bias.

And with that bias, it would seem to hinder looking at the situation from a neutral standpoint. This is evidenced by the repeated justification of using a private, unsecured server. Intel 101 class teaches exploitation by examining a targets’ levels of contact. The more insecure those levels are, the more exploitable the main target is. (It doesn’t matter what the target’s last name is).

That stated...why not take into consideration Mrs Clinton’s lies? She has a formidable resume in that respect.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - agreed, actions do speak louder than words. And the actions of Secretary of State were to set up an unsecured network and (eventually, by her own admission) repeatedly send classified information to people without the proper clearance.

The failure of her own appointing (thus, condoning) Administration and the succeeding incompetent Administration to hold her accountable doesn’t negate her actions or deny their existence.

The majority of their actions, left and right, have been reprehensible in recent years.

Best of luck.