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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 01:59 PM Jul 2016

Back in March this law professor explained there would be no indictment fairy,

because no criminal law applied to her circumstances and no comparable cases had ever been prosecuted.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

Richard O. Lempert (University of Michigan School of Law)

March 20, 2016

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information?
Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

SNIP

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Back in March this law professor explained there would be no indictment fairy, (Original Post) pnwmom Jul 2016 OP
Yeah ... But ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2016 #1
Meanwhile, over at JPR.... Heads explode!!! NT Adrahil Jul 2016 #2
Hard to tell the difference between a Trump supporter... yallerdawg Jul 2016 #3
Yep! pandr32 Jul 2016 #5
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #4
HRC "came out of it looking very bad" to those that never saw any good in her ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2016 #6
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
1. Yeah ... But ...
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:04 PM
Jul 2016

the case is a clear indictment on her lack of judgment. I just saw that on DU ... right after hearing it from a co-worker that spends his day listening to rightwing radio.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
3. Hard to tell the difference between a Trump supporter...
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:09 PM
Jul 2016

and Bernie supporter now, since they both want the same result!

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Back in March this law pr...