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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WAPO Op-Ed: No Indictment for Hillary Would Be A Problem for America:
Even if Hillary is not indicted, this would drag on for a long time.
Why a no-indictment for Hillary Clinton would still be a problem for America
......snip
Once, there was a statutory solution to this understandable skepticism, albeit a hugely imperfect one, in the form of the independent counsel law. Clinton knows better than anyone how prolonged and risky this route can be; the independent counsel originally named to investigate the Whitewater investment by Bill and Hillary Clinton ended up with Monica Lewinsky.
Even now that the statute has lapsed, the Justice Department retains the authority, by regulation, to appoint a special counsel when the attorney general “determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and “would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”
There’s no indication that Justice has contemplated this step; indeed, it’s not clear it has even determined that a “criminal investigation” is warranted. In any event, turning to a special counsel now, with the clock ticking toward
Election Day, would not serve the public well. What it needs is maximum information speedily revealed.
FBI agents and federal prosecutors tend to be allergic to releasing information, appropriately so. (There is that pesky matter of grand jury information, which is supposed to be kept secret, although there’s no indication this inquiry has even reached the grand jury stage.) Prosecutors either indict or stand down, no explanation provided. But in the case of a public figure whose conduct has drawn intense scrutiny, that approach may not be optimal — for the individual involved or, more important in this case, for the public.
There is useful guidance in both the independent counsel law and the department’s own precedents. The independent counsel law required the prosecutor to file a final report — hence the infamous Kenneth Starr report on Lewinsky — that the supervising court could make public.
Similarly, the Justice Department in 2010 issued a 92-page investigative summary that detailed the evidence against Bruce E. Ivins, the Fort Detrick researcher who was the suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks but who committed suicide while under investigation.
Ordinarily, that would have ended the case, but officials determined that the intense public interest justified releasing more information. Tellingly, that took a year to accomplish — time that is not available in this circumstance
So that leaves — assuming no indictment — an unsatisfying situation.
Ordinarily, in such cases, there would be no official announcement at all. In some high-profile cases, Justice has taken the unusual step of announcing that the matter is closed. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced that there would be no prosecution in the death of two CIA detainees overseas, saying that “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the Clinton situation, there has to be a way to provide more information, in a timely way, from a credible source. Senior Justice officials will be mistrusted whatever they say, but what about FBI Director James B. Comey, who served in the Justice Department under George W. Bush?
If this inquiry is closed without further action, the public will need some explanation beyond everyone-just-move-along-now. Not for Clinton, but for the sake of the Justice Department and the professionals who work there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-clinton-isnt-indicted/2016/03/29/81a1033e-f5d7-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html
......snip
Once, there was a statutory solution to this understandable skepticism, albeit a hugely imperfect one, in the form of the independent counsel law. Clinton knows better than anyone how prolonged and risky this route can be; the independent counsel originally named to investigate the Whitewater investment by Bill and Hillary Clinton ended up with Monica Lewinsky.
Even now that the statute has lapsed, the Justice Department retains the authority, by regulation, to appoint a special counsel when the attorney general “determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and “would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”
There’s no indication that Justice has contemplated this step; indeed, it’s not clear it has even determined that a “criminal investigation” is warranted. In any event, turning to a special counsel now, with the clock ticking toward
Election Day, would not serve the public well. What it needs is maximum information speedily revealed.
FBI agents and federal prosecutors tend to be allergic to releasing information, appropriately so. (There is that pesky matter of grand jury information, which is supposed to be kept secret, although there’s no indication this inquiry has even reached the grand jury stage.) Prosecutors either indict or stand down, no explanation provided. But in the case of a public figure whose conduct has drawn intense scrutiny, that approach may not be optimal — for the individual involved or, more important in this case, for the public.
There is useful guidance in both the independent counsel law and the department’s own precedents. The independent counsel law required the prosecutor to file a final report — hence the infamous Kenneth Starr report on Lewinsky — that the supervising court could make public.
Similarly, the Justice Department in 2010 issued a 92-page investigative summary that detailed the evidence against Bruce E. Ivins, the Fort Detrick researcher who was the suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks but who committed suicide while under investigation.
Ordinarily, that would have ended the case, but officials determined that the intense public interest justified releasing more information. Tellingly, that took a year to accomplish — time that is not available in this circumstance
So that leaves — assuming no indictment — an unsatisfying situation.
Ordinarily, in such cases, there would be no official announcement at all. In some high-profile cases, Justice has taken the unusual step of announcing that the matter is closed. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced that there would be no prosecution in the death of two CIA detainees overseas, saying that “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the Clinton situation, there has to be a way to provide more information, in a timely way, from a credible source. Senior Justice officials will be mistrusted whatever they say, but what about FBI Director James B. Comey, who served in the Justice Department under George W. Bush?
If this inquiry is closed without further action, the public will need some explanation beyond everyone-just-move-along-now. Not for Clinton, but for the sake of the Justice Department and the professionals who work there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-clinton-isnt-indicted/2016/03/29/81a1033e-f5d7-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
somehow she's done no wrong???? 
to expound on somehow this isn't a big deal. That wasn't a jab at actual security experts, or others with Secrets or TS's. 
Watergate now? Really? On a democratic board? Reeks of desperation.
#feelthemath
