2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLibertarian VP Candidate Blows Republicans' Email Hopes To Smithereens
But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.
Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
So there you go, Republicans. Your Libertarian challengers are blowing up your smear campaigns right and left.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans
pinebox
(5,761 posts)all bets are off.
TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)15% is a pipe dream. 3% might be a pipe dream.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)riversedge
(70,044 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He said, IIRC, that both are smart as whips, but she was smarter than Bill.
-none
(1,884 posts)Either you do it correctly, or you are in violation. Hillary signed a couple of forms signifying she understood which was what.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term classified information of the United States means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments
...
Furthermore, DU lawyer, I will defer to the legal opinion of the former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)There are two issues most often under discussion:
1. We know she messed up in maintaining work correspondence such that it would not be properly archived and available to FOIA requests. Was that intentional? It's hard to prove intent, but I put forth a perspective on that at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512101411
2. If she is found to have mishandled classified information, there has been conflicting about whether or not intent matters. But to use your quote about someone who "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" -- the word "remove" is interesting when it comes to electronic data, since having a copy of it does not remove it from its other location. But she did arguably keep copies of--let's call it potentially classified--information at an unauthorized location (wherever her server was), and also kept it personally accessible long after she left her position as SOS.
But for the justice dep't to take action, I think there would have to be some pretty unambiguous evidence, so the question may really be one of what else the FBI may know (or learn).
Also of interest in your quote is the penalty, which could simply be a fine ("shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both" . So even if she were indicted (at least under the statute you quote), something like a "no contest" plea with a financial penalty would probably end it. As others have pointed out, people in these kinds of positions have also had the security clearances revoked, but I don't know that there is a requirement for such a penalty (and a president could presumably override that anyway).
Even then, we're talking about the penalties regarding classified information. The penalties for the FOIA related stuff is, as far as I can see, basically non-existent, unless they do indeed manage to go to intent/obstruction.
There is one other issue which probably has more explosive potential, but also is the one where is the least known real evidence, and that has to do with the lack of a sufficient wall between her actions as SOS and activities within the Clinton Foundation. But talk of that is little more than speculation.
Bottom line, I still wouldn't put any money on her being indicted... and if she is, she may be able to plea out pretty harmlessly. But that doesn't mean that Trump can't benefit from all this.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)And is only deflection for something you do not want to acknowledge.
If you want tax returns, how about Hillary's Goldman Sack transcripts? What do they want in return for their $250,000 to $350,000 a pop to Hillary?
Or would you rather stick with the server issue?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Mr Weld appears to be the Palin/Stockdale clueless VP candidate of 2016.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I deleted it on the off chance it would offend somebody. We need a gif with a fairy like her:
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)homophobic about that post? The smell of your desperation, however, is getting pretty rancid.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)karynnj
(59,495 posts)yet, that was not an issue for him ever - even in MA - even when he faced Kerry for Senate. He even stonewalled when Senator Lugar made the requests himself.
All the same, I do not think this ends the Republican campaign on this -- as it does not dependent on an indictment. The story itself adds to negatives. What does halt the effectiveness is that the alternative is the loathsome Trump.
andym
(5,442 posts)He resigned his position as head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department to protest Ed Meese during Reagan.