epublicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can’t say so.

[riversedge]

I think we all know this information. Just nice to see in print.


The Plum Lineopinion
Republicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can’t say so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/

By Paul Waldman April 11 at 12:27 PM


................Wallace then pressed Obama on whether he would exercise any influence over the investigation, and he guaranteed (multiple times) that he wouldn’t. Although Obama’s answer might not be all that revealing to the uninitiated, he actually touched on the most critical questions with regard to an indictment. First, the classified material in question was not marked classified at the time it was sent and received; it was only afterward that the intelligence agencies retroactively classified it, which is critical to any legal case against Clinton. Second and most important, in order to be charged with the crime of mishandling classified information, the person has to knowingly and intentionally make the information available to someone who doesn’t have authorization to receive it, or act with such extraordinary negligence that it would inevitably fall into the wrong hands.

So for instance, David Petraeus got charged because he showed top secret documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it). But there’s no evidence that Clinton did anything even remotely similar. That’s why, when Politico’s Josh Gerstein examined prior cases similar to this one, he concluded that an indictment is highly unlikely. As Gestein writes:

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules, as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

The only person with something resembling expertise in this area Gerstein could find who would say Clinton ought to be indicted was the increasingly loathsome Rudy Giuliani, whose opinion on matters like this is worth about as much a ticket to one of his inspirational speeches. (There’s a lengthier examination of the legal issues in this article by law professor Richard Lempert, if you’re interested.)
.

Just to be clear, I’m not defending Clinton’s decision to set up her own email server. That was a violation of departmental policy, and she shouldn’t have done it. But that’s very different from saying it was a crime, or even that it jeopardized national security in some way. (There’s been no evidence that Clinton’s server was hacked or that anyone even tried to hack it, unlike the State Department’s own systems, which are constantly targeted by hackers.).................................

[NurseJackie]

1. Republicans aren't the only ones ...

[mcar]

2. Indeed

[Her Sister]

3. Some are going to be heartbroken

to hear this!

[brer cat]

5. Some here are not going to believe it.

They are heavily invested in an indictment that they are sure is coming.

[2naSalit]

4. Cue the Hillary Haters in 3, ...2, ...1