Why would that be the case? How do you think the law works? Just because the President breaks the law doesn't magically change the law...

Honestly, I don't know the applicable laws very well (or at all). This was just an honest question.

Given all the contention over the HRC email thing and specifically over this reddit revelation, I'm not so sure that the situation we have is clearly defined within the laws (otherwise why wouldn't everything be clear cut and decided already?).

The law behind the mishandling of classified information is from the 1950s and is mostly outdated.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

What is clear however, is that judging Clinton's mishandling of emails as a crime, when only one person in a hundred years in completely different circumstances has been prosecuted for the same crime, would be unprecedented.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-...

There was a guy prosecuted this year for similar security lapses. He went to jail.

Snowden wrote in wired, though the article doesn't cover the latest news https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prose...

Who should we believe? A writer from Wired Magazine? Or the director of the FBI who is also a lawyer?

There are several distinctions between the Clinton case and the Petraeus case.

* The Clinton case revolved around an unclassified context while the Petraeus case revolved around information taken from a classified context.

* The Clinton case involved data not marked classified (keep in mind emailing New York Times links to someone about about Snowden would be highly classified information), while the Petraeus case involved books that were clearly classified.

* The Clinton case showed no intent while the Petraeus case involved clear intent.

* The Clinton case involved an internal server while the Petraeus case involved open books given to his mistress.

* Clinton cooperated with the FBI while Petraeus intentionally misled the FBI.

Also, reminder that Snowden is a wanted criminal asking for a pardon for leaking 200,000 classified documents to the press, while taking refuge in the state of a geopolitical enemy. He will make scripted media appearances on behalf of Putin [1]. He is not a reliable source.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y

Those are great talking points.

Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points.

My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding.

* The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through it as we now know.

* Some things were marked classified and some were not. This has no bearing on anything however. The onus is on the person who has the clearance to treat and handle all classified information properly regardless of whether it is marked properly or not.

* Clinton's intent: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

i.e. take classified info, put into email form and strip the classified markings from it, then send to me.

Source: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

I'll stop there. Basically your points are garbage.

You and your friends with your 100+ years of security clearance holding are free to have an opinion on Clinton's handling of her private email server.

What you cannot reasonably do, is take the legal opinion of the Director of the FBI, that the Clinton case is different from the Petraeus case, and disagree based on the fact that you have 100+ years of security clearance holding.

I have explained to you key points in James Comey's legal opinion that the Petraeus situation is not applicable to Clinton. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than I in some area or another, however that doesn't change the fact that the legal position of the FBI has already decided. You can disagree if you want, in the same way people from the internet disagree that climate change exists. I am not interested your vague insinuations.

I am not writing about the narrow issues of Petraeus vs Clinton but about the well known and well understood, by some 6 million current and former security clearance holders, methods and requirements of handling classified info.

Petraeus vs Clinton is a red herring, I didn't mention Petraeus. I was referring to the case of Brian Nishimura.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption...

You linked to an article that only mentioned Petraeus in your previous comment. Regardless, Comey spoke briefly on Nishimura as well so my response is the same.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/07/wolf.01.html

>federal law doesn’t prohibit the discussion of classified information over unsecured networks."

Seriously? "Oh, man, we sure left a loophole you can drive a truck through! Better update the training materials to make sure clearance holders know this is kosher..."

Sorry, but my prior on this claim is just way too low to casually accept that the analysis, as given in the first link, is plugging the relevant laws into the facts. Classified-material law just doesn't make sense if something like that is legal.

Also, precedence can definitely matter in law sometimes. For instance, if someone does not enforce a patent or a copyright, that can sometimes lead to loss of such patent/copyright protections. Indeed, this isn't all that similar of a situation, but hey, who knows? I'm not a lawyer.