Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

[Her Sister]

Another really long read ~written by a law professor:


Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Shouldn’t Clinton have known that some of information in her emails must have been classified?

If the ‎material she received was unmarked, the answer is most likely “no.” Some classified information, no matter how sensitive, may appear sensitive only to those aware of a larger context. A report that Iran had received a ton of apricots from Turkey might, for example, be classified as top secret not because there is anything sensitive about the apricot shipment but because if Iran knew we had this information, it would know we had found a way to penetrate a secret shipping network. Yet few but the report’s originator would have reason to think the information was classified. The government also has rules regarding classified information that strike many people as silly. Following the WikiLeaks and Snowden incidents, for example, references to documents containing top-secret information were the subject of television and press reports. But the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world knew the once closely held information did not change its classification status, as I was reminded in a memo sent to DHS employees, which went on to tell its recipients that they should avoid exposure to news referencing these documents.

more, a lot more.....

[Her Sister]

1. Law Professor on "emailgate": Clinton committed no crimes

Law Professor on "emailgate": Clinton committed no crimes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/22/1504889/-Law-Professor-on-emailgate-Clinton-committed-no-crimes

Richard O. Lempert is not only a Law professor, but also worked for the Department of Homeland Security, where he "took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate."

Lembert just schooled pundits who pretend Clinton broke the law. He said they "reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification". prospect.org/...

The piece debunking myths about Hillary with regard to "Emailgate" is very long, and you should read it in its entirety. I will give you just a couple of excerpts:

"Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States."
He gives us the definition of classified information:

"Classified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for … restricted dissemination.”
He concludes,

"Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information".
Meanwhile, right wingers and some Bernie-supporting nicknames on discussion boards continue to pretend that Clinton broke the law.

www.dailykos.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467650/-Hillary-will-be-indicted-Time-to-unite-behind-someone-else

[Thinkingabout]

2. After the espionage at NSA I don't have a lot of confidence the .gov site is hack free.

So far it has been determined her server has not been hacked so her server was probably safer from hacking than NSA and .gov.