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

Gothmog

(175,693 posts)
5. FBI investigation
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:09 PM
May 2016
5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?

As a lawyer I have been following this issue for a while. There is very little chance of an indictment because there has been no proof that Clinton either violated the law or had the required mens rea or culpable mental state to violate the law. Intent is a key element here (do not pay attention to the threads posted by layperson on this issue). http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

Again the law is clear here despite some rather sad but really funny threads posted by some laypersons on this board.

Recommendations

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

Great questions. A wonderful tribute to your username. RufusTFirefly May 2016 #1
Platform on Citizens United Gothmog May 2016 #2
I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real JudyM May 2016 #3
Here, here. LAS14 May 2016 #11
Fracking Gothmog May 2016 #4
Ack! a fracking supporter! panader0 May 2016 #6
A rare sighting, to be sure! Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #9
I'll drink to that! RufusTFirefly May 2016 #26
FBI investigation Gothmog May 2016 #5
She "chose" to ignore the rules. So it's not a "serious lapse in judgement". panader0 May 2016 #7
Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath Gothmog May 2016 #14
I disagree that no crimes were committed--we'll have to wait and see. panader0 May 2016 #16
Exactly. The fact that Obama's DoJ may not indict is not a demonstration that no crime has occurred. Attorney in Texas May 2016 #25
What? yallerdawg May 2016 #27
This spells doom in the 40 or so civil suits for Hillary's deliberate violation of the FOIA, but the Attorney in Texas May 2016 #24
"As a lawyer..." bvf May 2016 #8
No-but I may try for the rules committee at the DNC Gothmog May 2016 #13
Oooh...! bvf May 2016 #18
I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues Gothmog May 2016 #21
I've been fairly active since working Dennis Kucinich's bvf May 2016 #33
Your posts amuse me given the rather sad but silly nature of your posts Gothmog May 2016 #34
Who said anything about Philadelphia? bvf May 2016 #37
You'd better hurry before DWS is thrown out.... panader0 May 2016 #19
Texas gets 9 members to each of the Rules, Platform and Credentials permanent committees Gothmog May 2016 #20
Any statement about "mens rea" is ill informed. You don't have access to the FBI's investigation so Attorney in Texas May 2016 #23
Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. Gothmog May 2016 #31
You say that you abhor the non-legal analysis of the issue. You should know there's no "exoneration" Attorney in Texas May 2016 #32
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I however have to disagree (a little bit). ThinkCritically May 2016 #36
Happy to engage in civil discourse. LAS14 May 2016 #10
Thanks for numbering Buzz cook May 2016 #12
Hmmm Tarc May 2016 #15
ok arely staircase May 2016 #17
Well, you could learn something about Citizens United, for starters. TwilightZone May 2016 #22
I'll answer: CrowCityDem May 2016 #28
+ 1 JoePhilly May 2016 #29
On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case Thinkingabout May 2016 #30
^^^Thank you for all your responses^^^ ThinkCritically May 2016 #35
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Questions I'd like answer...»Reply #5