Legal experts: Hillary's email use "not something a prosecutor would take to court"

[A Perez]

Except

"Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius checked the "overstated" uproar over Hillary Clinton's email use as secretary of state, citing national security legal experts who roundly dismiss the idea that any criminal mishandling of classified information occurred.

In an August 28 post describing "The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't," Ignatius cited legal experts and agency officials to explain how Clinton's use of a private server is "not something a prosecutor would take to court" and how transmitting unmarked, then retroactively classified emails does "almost certainly not" constitute a crime: "
Wash. Post 's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's Email Use

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yepp.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This reminds me a lot of the horrible EBOLA scare right before the 2014 mid-terms....

 

[Obiwan]

Except

"Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius checked the "overstated" uproar over Hillary Clinton's email use as secretary of state, citing national security legal experts who roundly dismiss the idea that any criminal mishandling of classified information occurred.

In an August 28 post describing "The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't," Ignatius cited legal experts and agency officials to explain how Clinton's use of a private server is "not something a prosecutor would take to court" and how transmitting unmarked, then retroactively classified emails does "almost certainly not" constitute a crime: "
Wash. Post 's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's Email Use

An op-ed from a partisan source?


I think the better route would be to see what the FBI says.

 

[Ernie S.]

From the blog:
David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for "knowingly" removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at "unauthorized locations." Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.

By the time hillary sent her server to be wiped and dropped off thumb drives with her consigliere, she most certainly knew some documents contained were classified. Combine that with the simple fact that the very use of a private email account for official business is a violation.
The bitch is done.

I'm wondering if she can get her $900 tailored pant suits in prison orange.

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

There may be more revelations to come.

 

[A Perez]

Except

"Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius checked the "overstated" uproar over Hillary Clinton's email use as secretary of state, citing national security legal experts who roundly dismiss the idea that any criminal mishandling of classified information occurred.

In an August 28 post describing "The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't," Ignatius cited legal experts and agency officials to explain how Clinton's use of a private server is "not something a prosecutor would take to court" and how transmitting unmarked, then retroactively classified emails does "almost certainly not" constitute a crime: "
Wash. Post 's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's Email Use

An op-ed from a partisan source?


I think the better route would be to see what the FBI says.

When the FBI finds no wrong -

Except

"Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius checked the "overstated" uproar over Hillary Clinton's email use as secretary of state, citing national security legal experts who roundly dismiss the idea that any criminal mishandling of classified information occurred.

In an August 28 post describing "The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't," Ignatius cited legal experts and agency officials to explain how Clinton's use of a private server is "not something a prosecutor would take to court" and how transmitting unmarked, then retroactively classified emails does "almost certainly not" constitute a crime: "
Wash. Post 's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's Email Use

An op-ed from a partisan source?


I think the better route would be to see what the FBI says.

Do you expect anyone to believe that you right wing nuts will accept the FBI 'S decision? If the FBI declines to prosecute, you will say it is a coverup.

 

[A Perez]

There may be more revelations to come.

We are talking about crimes, not "revelations".

 

[BluesLegend]

She's guilty of being a stupid moron, do we really want someone that stupid in the oval office? Oh wait, Obama (face palm)