Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Will Clinton be pardoned or face trial for mishandling classified information?

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by freebird, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    I thought this might deserve a new topic, some interesting legal questions here.

    This thread isn't primarily intended for the pro/anti Clinton forces to boost/bash the Secretary. I'm curious how the legal elements would unfold, and would it make political sense?

    Welcome to the weird world of US politics.

    What makes you so sure?
    She has clearly committed an offence (mishandling of classified information), and Sessions may just decide that she should face the same justice as Petreaus and dozens of others.

    And a very interesting dilemma for D'oh bama - he may decide that torpedoing a future Hillary run is in the best interests of the Dem party.
    He could give himself cover by declaring that while she is "clearly innocent" of any crime, he's giving the pardon to prevent a GOP partisan prosecution.


    But is he/she willing to gamble that she won't be charged?
    There are quite a few prosecutors who've said that a conviction would be a slam dunk.

    Problem is, if Obama doesn't and she is charged, she'll have no protection.
     
  2. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I'd say that the odds are better for a Trump impeachment than another Clinton trial.
     
  3. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    Decent chance for both.
    (And probably both well deserved) :D
     
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    If you refer to a last minute pardon from Obama, probably not. A pardon would imply that she was guilty of something and the Democratic elite's have too much invested in the 'Trump is not the legitimate winner of 2016 election' to muddy the waters by admitting that she might not be deserving enough to hold the office. Also at this moment no charges are present or pending. The one fly in the ointment is the Inspector General's desire to investigate the investigation by Comey/Justice department. The IG is a democratic nomination (I Think), so this might come back to bite the left.
     
    Sloniksp and ColHessler like this.
  5. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    True, but the decision to file charges rests with the A-G, notwithstanding Comeys rather strange interpretation of the statute, and advice not to prosecute.

    I can see a few reasons why they might decide to prosecute.

    1.) Could be seen as a bargaining chip to get the Dem's to drop plans to filibuster a supreme Court nominee. (Drop the filibuster and the case gets dropped)

    2.) The spectacle of a televised trial, with State Dept. employees taking the fifth when questioned about hard drives wiped and blackberry's smashed won't look good to the public.

    3.) Assuming that the new administration trips into some embarrassing scandal, it would make for a distraction.

    4.) It was a pledge from Trump in the campaign, and one of the few that's in his power to carry out reasonably quickly.
    They can fund the wall, but construction won't be quick.
    Obamacare may prove difficult to replace.
    Jobs creation will be a slow process.
    Immigration reform will be difficult to pass.
    Trade deals might not be so easy to cancel
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Whether or not she committed that offence is not as clear as you think. While I suspect she is at least somewhat guilty of it I can see a number of legal issues that can be raised that would raise a "reasonable doubt".

    First consider that all the material that has been re classified is out of the case. She was the classification authority for that and if she said it wasn't classified then it wasn't.

    Second some (or perhaps even all) of the classified material that was in the emails may not have initially been inserted by her or may have been relayed to her with out the classified label.

    Third there is little evidence that she sought to profit from the dissemination of the information or released it in order to damage the US. This means she can't be convicted of the more serious offenses related to the release of classified information.

    Fourth there is her statement that, at least, some of the material was common knowledge and shouldn't have been classified in the first place. Now that doesn't mean that she's not legally responsible for handling it appropriately but it does mean that a jury might find it less likely to convict her if they are in agreement.

    Some have stated that an ordinary government worker who released such information would be charged but in many cases, absent a profit motive or intent to damage the US, workers aren't charged. They may loose their clearances and thus their jobs but the focus of the security people is to limit the damage and prevent additional damage/incidents.

    Things related to her practices with regards to electronic communication, including the server, provided more than enough reasons for me not to vote for her but I'm not convinced that she'll ever be convicted of anything related to it. Of course I don't know what was really in those emails and likely never will so at least some questions will remain.
     

Share This Page