Two detailed legal pieces this wk re: how Hillary Clinton isn't going to be indicted

[bigtree]

Eric Boehlert ‏@EricBoehlert 1h1 hour ago
Two detailed legal pieces this wk re: how Clinton (surprise!) isn't going to be indicted:


March 22, 2016

Legal experts see little chance of Hillary’s 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 it’s 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]

1. KNR Thank you!

[riversedge]

2. bookmarked and thank you

[pantsonfire]

10. From the articles...

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.

Regardless of the legal question, if Clinton secures the Democratic presidential nomination she’s certain to be dogged by the issue through the November election.

“Ultimately, the real risk for the secretary might not be legal as much as it is political,” Sales said.

2.

Despite much fearmongering from conservative media, Lembert concluded that "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" and that "Clinton's optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified"

[NWCorona]

12. Yeah I'm not really sure if the people breathing a sigh of relief

Actually read the link. I think there's more negatives than positives for Clinton in that article.

[geek tragedy]

3. cue some folks to tell us why legal experts aren't as credible as the NY

Post and Daily Caller.

[NWCorona]

8. Actually if you read the link it doesn't absolve Clinton at all

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]

11. um, maybe you need to read the links:

this seems pretty definitive:

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" and that "Clinton's optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified"

[NWCorona]

13. Yeah that's the mediamatters link

Run by Hillary's employee. No thanks! But I'm happy to discuss the other one.

[geek tragedy]

14. yes, liberal websites are much less credible than NY Post, Daily Caller,

and Investors.com, because those sites are rightwing and thus very trustworthy, right?

[NWCorona]

16. Yes I'd much rather prefer a liberal website

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]

17. the other link that also said she won't be indicted because the acts

she allegedly committed weren't the kind the statutes are designed to prevent.

[NWCorona]

18. I'm not so sure but please supply a qoute

So we can have a go.

[pantsonfire]

4. Detailed legal pieces....not RW?...still...

Do they know more than the FBI?

[WhiteTara]

5. I wish DOJ would put this to rest. nt

[sadoldgirl]

6. I never expected any indictment for her,

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]

7. You are ruining their fantasy.

[oasis]

9. "Won't be indicted"

So ends the hopes and dreams of revolution.

[Marr]

15. I never imagined I'd see Democrats with expectations so low

that they cheer at predictions that their Wall Street funded presidential candidate may not be indicted.

[Dem2]

19. Considering how many "Democrats" on this very site are drooling over the possibility that she'll be

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?