What this serviceman did was illegal. What Clinton did was illegal. The prosecution of both was unequal. But I think this leads us to a greater question of:
What information, if any, does the state have a right to keep confidential?
Headline: Sailor pardoned by Trump is SUING Obama and Comey for going easy on Hillary Clinton but sending him to prison after he photographed classified area of nuclear sub*
Source: Daily Mail
Does the state have a right to prosecute and keep information confidential? Or do we have an inherent right to know all things about our governments?
I'm asking some pretty hypothetical questions here with some pretty glaring consequences. If you allow people to take pictures of the inside of classified government weaponary you're giving away details of your defense to the enemy. I'm not arguing for that.
I'm merely asking the question, 'What is the extent of the state's right to confidentiality?'
Some highlights from the article by the Daily Mail
A former U.S. Navy seaman who spent a year in federal prison for photographing a classified area of a nuclear submarine plans to sue former President Barack Obama and fired FBI director James Comey for selectively prosecuting him.
Daigle told Fox News that his legal strategy includes drawing attention to 'the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted.'
'There’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected,' he said.
Federal prosecutors persuaded him to plead guilty by threatening to paint him as a resentful serviceman who risked the security of the United States and then destroyed a camera and a computer to hide the evidence.
But Saucier believes prosecuting him was a politically motivated decision driven by the Obama Justice Department's desire to appear tough on the kinds of crime it was sweeping under the rug when Clinton was their investigative target.