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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Questions I'd like answered from Hillary Supporters.... [View all]Gothmog
(175,724 posts)14. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath
No crime was committed and there will be no indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath
The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politicos Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clintons foes shouldnt hold their breaths.
Politicos examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.
Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.
TPMs Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. To a person, Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is very far-fetched.
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clintons use of a private server for her emails, but in nearly all instances that were prosecuted aggravating circumstances that dont appear to be present in Clintons case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Politicos examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.
Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.
TPMs Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. To a person, Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is very far-fetched.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real
JudyM
May 2016
#3
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
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
I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues
Gothmog
May 2016
#21
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
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
On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#30