Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumHill's Group: Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server
This is one of the best and most thorough discussions of "Emailgate" that I have seen.
Will it stop the relentless posting about this? Unlikely. Because CDS. But it does present the facts in a way that I have not seen them cogently summarized elsewhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
For those of you salivating or trembling at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention this summer: deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.
...
There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction, American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
...
..., there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.
...
There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction, American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
...
..., there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.
More at the link, including citations to the relevant statutes.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1120 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hill's Group: Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server (Original Post)
BlueMTexpat
Mar 2016
OP
dburner3
(8 posts)1. DOJ clears Clinton
I believe the DOJ as of yesterday has already cleared Hillary.
BlueMTexpat
(15,348 posts)2. Even if ...
we will no doubt continue to hear/read cr** about this issue from GOPers and those who carry water for them.