Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pat_k

(13,328 posts)
2. No "intent to mishandle" found. Unfortunately, there are other factors.
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:10 PM
May 2016

The likelihood of an indictment is not zero. The chances may be tiny, but factors other than intent may come into play.

Nathan Sales, an associate law professor at Syracuse University, disagrees with Lowell's and others' assessment. "Many scholars and lawyers think it's unlikely. I'm actually kind of in the minority on this," Sales says. "But, based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'"

Sales points to the Petraeus case in particular, noting that the former CIA head did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] — keeping the documents on an unclassified server — that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus," he says.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503#ixzz47pDlWWxL

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't think anyone in this country is surprised. George II May 2016 #1
No, but there are a number of people here who are desperately hoping for an indictment mythology May 2016 #24
And they're having the SADZ now. BlueCaliDem May 2016 #30
No "intent to mishandle" found. Unfortunately, there are other factors. pat_k May 2016 #2
Nathan Sales...worked in Homeland under Bush...writes for the national review quite often. Demsrule86 May 2016 #18
I appreciate the info on the source. pat_k May 2016 #21
I know how badly Bernie supporters want their own reality, politicaljunkie41910 May 2016 #19
Thanks for the insight. pat_k May 2016 #22
Just who are these unnamed officials? nt NWCorona May 2016 #3
the article admits she broke laws/just wether she did knowingly questionseverything May 2016 #27
OMG ucrdem May 2016 #4
I am hearing that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of the 'anonymous officials' AgingAmerican May 2016 #5
Adjust your tinfoil, then the voices will go away. nt procon May 2016 #7
So you cannot confirm otherwise? AgingAmerican May 2016 #8
Can you confirm you didn't make that up right now? Adrahil May 2016 #9
Breaking: Confirmed! AgingAmerican May 2016 #11
That's what I thought. Adrahil May 2016 #12
Do you have inside info on just who these alleged 'officials' are? AgingAmerican May 2016 #14
No. I'm sure the WaPo just made them up. Expect an indictment tomorrow. Adrahil May 2016 #16
The WaPo is just repeating CNN AgingAmerican May 2016 #17
Clap your hands!! Adrahil May 2016 #20
This too: "Anne Gearan and Adam Goldman contributed to this report." Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #10
Yawn, because it is so NOT surprising. nt BootinUp May 2016 #6
meanwhile back in Bernieville CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #13
Lol!! oasis May 2016 #25
Oh dear. Do we have enough buckets to catch all the tears that will fall? grossproffit May 2016 #15
Good. I hope these leaks are accurate and this gets wrapped up soon. morningfog May 2016 #23
Now it's gone from US officials to FBI officials Press Virginia May 2016 #26
You don't have to have malicious intent Aerows May 2016 #28
So, Clinton's defense has morphed to: She broke the law, but she didn't understand that law. (nt) w4rma May 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WAPO: scant evidence agai...»Reply #2