2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTwo detailed legal pieces this wk re: how Hillary Clinton isn't going to be indicted
Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert 1h1 hour agoTwo detailed legal pieces this wk re: how Clinton (surprise!) isn't going to be indicted:
March 22, 2016
Legal experts see little chance of Hillarys indictment over emails
The relatively few laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies, leakers and those who illegally retain such information, such as at home. Though the view is not unanimous, several lawyers who specialize in this area said its a stretch to apply existing statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides not a national enemy.
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/03/22/legal-experts-see-little-chance-of-hillarys-indictment-over-emails/
March 21, 2016
Law Professor Explains Why Hillary Clinton "Won't Be Indicted And Shouldn't Be" Over Her Email Server
Richard Lampert: "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"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)riversedge
(70,047 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)I think the first "real risk might not be legal as much as it is political" is spot on. And the second..."based on what has been revealed"...again the FBI hasn't revealed the most important evidence/emails relevant to their investigation.
1.
Ultimately, the real risk for the secretary might not be legal as much as it is political, Sales said.
2.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Actually read the link. I think there's more negatives than positives for Clinton in that article.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Post and Daily Caller.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)The main argument is that they aren't sure if prosecutors would want to take the gamble of a trial. The common concensus of the experts is that this is a possible gross negligence case
Also note that none of these guys are privy to what the FBI investigation has uncovered.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)this seems pretty definitive:
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Run by Hillary's employee. No thanks! But I'm happy to discuss the other one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and Investors.com, because those sites are rightwing and thus very trustworthy, right?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But if you are going to gloss over Brock and the connections to Hillary. I don't know what else to say.
I see you aren't gonna discuss that other link tho.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)she allegedly committed weren't the kind the statutes are designed to prevent.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)So we can have a go.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Do they know more than the FBI?
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)after all, the powerful and rich never get/got one.
Look at the banksters.
On the other hand I also think that no indictment
is needed, because in the GE campaign the fact of
the FBI investigation is enough to deter voters.
Remember: Perception plays a big role, and the
M$M will create one for sure, not just the repugs.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)oasis
(49,317 posts)So ends the hopes and dreams of revolution.
Marr
(20,317 posts)that they cheer at predictions that their Wall Street funded presidential candidate may not be indicted.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)indicted, it's not unreasonable for some people to feel a little relief. There's a thread about how she "may" be indicted what? every hour or so?