Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In March 2025, in the thread "Re: OT, out", Umm asked the members: "Do you think it is because America is made up of magical soil that makes businesses based in America magically profitable?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (127) |
Author: albaby1 ✶❂🐝 GOLD
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 86253 
Subject: Re: Texiera on what the d's should do
Date: 03/25/25 10:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 15
And YOU kept banging the “intent” drum for Hillary!, who obviously had intent to willfully store and distribute classified information.

Yep. But here, we don't have a dispute about intent. Hillary couldn't be prosecuted because she didn't send the messages. She received them. Which means she couldn't be prosecuted for sending classified information, because there was no way to prove that she intended for classified information to be sent - she wasn't the one who sent the messages.

That's not true of Hegseth and Waltz, who intentionally sent classified information about the national defense through unsecured channels. Unlike Clinton, they're the authors of these messages.

Wiles, Gabbard, Rubio, and other participants in the chat are analogous to Clinton - they received the classified information on unsecured devices through unsecured channels. And I will maintain, just as I did with Clinton, that any effort to prosecute them would be unsuccessful, because there's no proof that they intended for classified information to end up in an unsecured channel on their (probably) non-secured devices.

The same is not true of Hegseth and Waltz. They were the senders of this information. They intentionally and knowingly chose what information was put into the Signal app and distributed through non-secure channels to (probably) non-secure devices.

Under your reading of the statute means that they've committed prosecutable crimes. But (I expect) you won't call for their prosecution, or lament that we have a "two tiered" justice system because they're escaping the type of criminal charges that any lesser official would be subject to immediately. The President has pulled the security clearance of scores of prior officials for no articulated reason, and yet these guys are not only going to keep their clearances despite knowingly placing classified information about a pending operation, but they'll keep their jobs as well.

I understand why you're not going to say that Hegseth and Waltz should be prosecuted. But I don't think you're in a position to criticize those on the left who are correctly pointing out that what they did was grossly incompetent.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 86,214 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (127) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community