Other Criminal Charges & Offenses Law Theory

[Txdust80]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

Say a law is on the books. And people have publicly admitted to break said law with zero action taken on them. But suddenly a single person is being charged with said law. Is there any credible defense that since other documented cases in which prosecutors didn't press charges on other individuals and choose to single this one person out give grounds to dismiss the case.
I'm debating the Hilary email scandal. Although I'm not debating one way or another that what she did was right or wrong, but why when the previous two secretary of states plus most of the Bush White House admit to the same offense and we even subpoenas denied in the past because said individuals had used private emails to conduct classified correspondence that by focusing solely on Clinton and not Rice nor Powell or any of the countless Washington big names involved as well strengthens Clintons defense. That even if charges were brought on her, she could have it thrown out based on some sort of discrimination bias. Am I remotely right? Is there a legal term for this?

 

[adjusterjack]

Say a law is on the books. And people have publicly admitted to break said law with zero action taken on them. But suddenly a single person is being charged with said law. Is there any credible defense that since other documented cases in which prosecutors didn't press charges on other individuals and choose to single this one person out give grounds to dismiss the case.

No.

I'm debating the Hilary email scandal. Although I'm not debating one way or another that what she did was right or wrong, but why when the previous two secretary of states plus most of the Bush White House admit to the same offense and we even subpoenas denied in the past because said individuals had used private emails to conduct classified correspondence that by focusing solely on Clinton and not Rice nor Powell or any of the countless Washington big names involved as well strengthens Clintons defense. That even if charges were brought on her, she could have it thrown out based on some sort of discrimination bias. Am I remotely right?

No.

But now you are talking politics, not crime. With politics, the "fix" is always in and whether any politician ever gets charged depends on whose toes he or she stepped on.

Is there a legal term for this?

Politics.

 

[txls]

People get pulled over for traffic violations and sometimes the officer will may decide to let them off with a warning instead of a ticket. It doesn't mean that others don't have to pay their ticket. Several cars may be speeding and the police can only pull one over. That person doesn't get a pass because the others got away.

 

[army judge]

Say a law is on the books. And people have publicly admitted to break said law with zero action taken on them. But suddenly a single person is being charged with said law. Is there any credible defense that since other documented cases in which prosecutors didn't press charges on other individuals and choose to single this one person out give grounds to dismiss the case.
I'm debating the Hilary email scandal. Although I'm not debating one way or another that what she did was right or wrong, but why when the previous two secretary of states plus most of the Bush White House admit to the same offense and we even subpoenas denied in the past because said individuals had used private emails to conduct classified correspondence that by focusing solely on Clinton and not Rice nor Powell or any of the countless Washington big names involved as well strengthens Clintons defense. That even if charges were brought on her, she could have it thrown out based on some sort of discrimination bias. Am I remotely right? Is there a legal term for this?

Your premise breaks apart by assuming HCL did exactly what the others did. Yes, others are alleged to have used private email servers.

Where your logic falls apart, neither is alleged to have used that server to correspond to or create "classified" emails.

You need to understand how classified information is to be viewed properly. As a reason who still holds a "top secret-crypto" clearance, from the old days, these days those emails are ONLY to be accessed in a SCIF room. (SCIF = secure compartmented information facility)



WHAT IS A SCIF?


HC's defense self destructs when she admitted to accessing such information from her mobile device, in her office, her home, or ANYWHERE not designated as an US government SCIF.

Politically, of course, any corpse knows that Obama will NIXONATE her in the last few weeks, maybe days, of his reign. Thus, to the chagrin if many (myself included), the matter is as we lawyers say, MOOT.