As net closes on Hillary’s mishandling of classified info, disturbing question arises about Trump

If there’s one thing I despise about politics today, it’s the very apparent double standard when it comes to the word “justice.”

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “President Trump tweeted Tuesday there’s a double standard in the government’s treatment of Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, pointing to Kristian Saucier, a former Navy sailor jailed for taking six photos inside a submarine.

Petty Officer Saucier served 11 years in the U.S. Navy aboard a nuclear submarine. He plead guilty to the accused offense, he never attempted to shirk responsibility and accepted being held accountable.

Now, President Trump invokes Saucier in tweets, but what keeps Trump from doing the honorable thing and pardoning Saucier and restoring his record? Why is it that this young man has had his life completely ruined, yet folks like Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin go untouched – as a matter of fact, Clinton traipses about the globe on speaking engagements and writing books? Can President Trump be so calloused as to use this young man as a political prop and not take the simple act of pardoning him, which he did for Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

Writing as a former nuclear submariner I do not agree with a pardon for this fellow. He broke the law and should be punished. I pretty much think that was Trump’s point. Why the hell would he pardon the lawbreaker? I can’t believe anyone on this site favors a pardon. He is no different than an illegal alien. He broke the law and he has to pay.

As the father of a nuke who has served on several Los Angeles class submarines, I agree with you. After 11 years in the Navy going through A school, Power school, prototype, and serving on submarines, this Saucier fellow knew darned well that taking pictures in the nuclear reactor compartment was a violation. Whenever my son would take me on a tour of his boat, he made it very clear that there were parts of the submarine that I could not see without the proper security clearance.

Regarding this issue, I don’t necessarily disagree.

To illustrate my point, I think we all know that Trump was (is?) inclined to grant amnesty to at least some of the so-called “Dreamers” (a “bill of love”), contrary to what he stated during the campaign. We also know that Ivanka fully supports amnesty for Dreamers and had more than a little influence in his adoption of that position. However, after some of his comments at the White House meeting on 9 January - comments that indicated his willingness to grant some level of amnesty to Dreamers, the president’s base - myself included - blew up the phone lines on Capitol Hill and he seems to have hardened his position somewhat in response.

Trump has people close to him who do not share our views on a lot of issues. They have far more influence than any one - or even one hundred - of us, but, collectively, when we see him start to divert from the positions for which we elected him, it is our duty to remind him why he was elected. It’s not a sign of disloyalty or abandonment, but a sign of our resolve and support.

I worked in the Bush (43) White House for 15 months and I saw it happen on multiple occasions; despite input from non-political subject matter experts (I was a detailee), political and personal advisors had much greater influence than those of us who understood the issues in detail. In contrast, however, there were occasions when broad outcry from Bush’s base managed to overcome even his closest advisors.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.