No. You're arguing the difference between can and will/may. If my second grade teacher taught me anything, it is that I CAN go to the bathroom at any time, but the times when I MAY go to the bathroom are a subset of the larger CAN set.
Pres. Obama most certainly CAN, but it's obvious that he will/may not. That's a conscious choice, and it's a pretty poor semantic dodge.
When the entire premise of this article is showing that Foer's initial article is almost entirely crap, I think we can safely assume that no, this isn't something that matters in the slightest. A company server sending marketing emails is a breed apart from a personal server housing classified information, so your attempt at establishing equivalence is pretty weak.
By the by, your liberal usage of commas left me reading your comment as a person very seriously out of breath.
You are correct that heroin is horrible, horrible stuff. Knowing that, one would think that a responsible cop would do everything in her/his power to ensure that investigations and arrests go exactly by the book. Wouldn't want those dope pushers to go back to peddling their poison just because they were too lazy, sloppy, or stupid to do their job correctly, would we?
No, sir, we should hit her repeatedly on this one. This isn't a policy choice, which would be trumpeted publicly in press conferences. This is a serial liar, a professional in obfuscation, realizing that the person she would have hanged has domain expertise and recognizing that his expertise should be respected. Saying a junkyard dog is good at guarding the junkyard is a far cry from saying that you want to let him sleep at the foot of your child's bed.
If you expect HRC to say that the rank and file should get to play by the same rules that she does, you will be repeatedly and viciously disappointed.
Salient bit from the earlier article: "The lawsuit also goes after a smaller Getty competitor, Alamy, that is doing the same thing, and some Getty subsidiaries, LCS and Piscount, who, again, are doing the same thing (in fact, the threat letters Highsmith received were from Piscount and LCS). To make matters even more confusing, even though Alamy is a Getty competitor, it uses a Getty subsidiary, LCS, to send out threat letters demanding cash."
Amen and amen to this. Every time someone uses "Republican X did it first" I want to fucking scream.
Burn them all down, every last one who has broken these rules and violated FEDERAL FUCKING LAW regarding the handling of classified material (which, again, all of these people signed a document acknowledging that content, and not a stamp, determines level of classification). Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, whoever, doesn't matter. Break the law? go to trial. Get convicted? go to jail, do not pass the Oval Office, do not collect a lifetime pension.
Your party affiliation doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Being convicted does, and evidence continues to mount in this case.
Any parent will immediately recognize this behavior. A request (clean your room) becomes a demand, and so the child will comply, but in the shittiest, most half-assed way possible. When problems arise because of the shit implementation of the request (I can't find my tablet because I just threw everything into the closet so my room would be "clean"), the child blames the task and not the execution.
Dear Stupidville PD: When you half-ass a solution, you only get more problems.
Posting hidden cam sex tape on a for-profit website seems a rough analogue to selling stolen property.
I don't see the First Amendment implications in the case, though framing the verdict in terms of "what constitutes 'newsworthy'" can skew it more in that direction. How about framing it as "Gawker used an illegal recording to drive that clickbait dollar machine"?
It could've been a video of Hogan and the lady playing Monopoly, still wouldn't change the fact that the recording itself is an illicit thing, apart from definitions of speech rights.