Earlier this week we wrote about 29-year-old Navy sailor, Kristian Saucier, who had plead guilty to espionage charges for snapping 6 photos of classified areas of a nuclear submarine and was facing up to 78 months in prison for his "crime" (see "Convicted Spy Is Using Hillary's "Lack Of Intent" Defense To Seek Leniency"). Even though he knew the pictures were classified, Saucier said he took them to "be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy" and denied ever showing the pictures to any "unauthorized recipients."

Saucier's attorney used the "Clinton Defense" at his sentencing hearing earlier this week, arguing that he possessed just 6 sensitive photographs which was "far less than Clinton’s 110 emails" that were ultimately deemed to contain classified information. Saucier's attorney went on to argue that “...it will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”

Unsurprisingly, Saucier didn't make out quite as well as Clinton but the "Clinton Defense" may have resulted in some level of leniency in his sentencing. According to The Hill, Saucier was facing up to 78 months in prison for his admission to "mishandling information" but a federal judge on Friday sentenced him to 12 months instead. Greg Rinckey, Saucier’s lawyer, said that while the judge indicated Clinton's case did not factor into the sentencing, he believes it played a small, albeit favorable role.

“Honestly did it help our case? I’m sure it did. We were very concerned that some people that are in high, powerful positions within the United States are selectively prosecuted. So I think it was a valid rationale.”

Clinton will also be mentioned in a separate upcoming case involving Major Jason Brezler. Brezler is being discharged from the Marine Corps for "mishandling classified information" after using his personal email account in 2012 to send a classified briefing document to fellow Marines in Afghanistan. The email was intended to warn fellow soldiers about the potential threat posed by an Afghan police chief. Brezler subsequently self-reported his actions to the military. Brezler's attorney, Michael Bowe, commented on the apparent double standard in applying the same laws to Clinton versus others who have committed "far less alleged misconduct":

“The FBI has found that Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ in her handling of classified information by, among other things, intentionally setting up a secret home server housing highly classified information." “Nevertheless, the current commander-in-chief has publicly stated that none of this impairs her 'excellent ability to serve', including as the next commander-in-chief. If that is so, then the current commander-in-chief should apply the same standard to Major Brezler and all those serving in his administration who have been found unfit to serve for far, far less alleged misconduct.” “Certainly, if Secretary Clinton becomes the next commander-in-chief it would the ultimate hypocrisy for her to declare others unfit for service based on alleged misconduct equal to or less serious than that she herself engaged."

Meanwhile, Bradley Moss, a lawyer specializing in national security and security clearance law, said he did not expect the "Clinton Defense" to necessarily be "effective" in getting cases tossed out. That said, he does suspect it will continue to be used as "leverage" to help get reduced sentencing for the accused.

“It’s being brought in to say, ‘Look, my guy is a simple rank-and-file person who did these three little things. Hillary Clinton … did all this, and they didn't do anything to her. It’s just being thrown in to try to sway the judge however little much it can, to say that something stinks in the state of Denmark.” “It's meant to be something that says, ‘And given everything else I’ve told you, let me throw on this one last piece to try to push you across the finish line to get you to agree with my theory’. It's just an additional piece of leverage ... just to try to put some icing on the cake.”

Rear Admiral Thomas Brooks, and former head of Navy intelligence, recently wrote about the "Clinton Defense" in the August issue of Proceedings Magazine. Among other things, Brooks points out that if Clinton were still a government employee her actions would have repercussions which could include loss of security clearance and/or termination. Brooks pointed to the case of Major Brezler to highlight the double standard between "political elites" and "rank-and-file" personnel.

Were Mrs. Clinton still a government employee, administrative actions could be taken against her, to include the loss of clearances and possibly termination. But she is no longer a government official, and no action of any kind is likely to be taken.

...leaves the appearance that political elites are not subject to the same rules as the rank-and-file and need not live up to the security oaths they sign. Other government employees will be held to the letter of the law, sometimes applied in what appears to be an arbitrary and capricious fashion. Recent examples here include the Navy reservist who was punished for accidentally possessing classified material on a personal thumb drive and a Marine in Afghanistan who used his personal email to warn his comrades of danger.

We too are somewhat skeptical of the "effectiveness" of the "Clinton Defense" when applied to the cases of rank-and-file personnel who don't carry the benefits that come along with Clinton's political clout. Nor do we suspect the hypocrisy of such double standards will in any away impact Clinton's path to the Presidency. Alas, anything less would require a discerning electorate motivated by facts and figures rather than the overly polarized, blindly loyal lemmings which currently determine national elections.