Dude, they can have you imprisoned until the end of the Congressional term for smelling funny. So yes, they have her on Contempt of Congress. They'll just never follow through on that shit because their guys did the same damn thing before she arrived on the scene.
As for perjury, that's bullshit. To perjure yourself you have to be saying something you know and believe is untrue. If Hillary is telling the truth on her timeline, believed that her private email server was legal (not a stretch, given that numerous other officials had them), and forgot what she sent Blumenthal then she's innocent.
She has already been caught deleting emails relevant to State Department. One of her friends (Sydney Blumenthal) turned over emails in another investigation from Hillary and they were not in what she disclosed to Congress. She claimed deleted emails had to do with a wedding or yoga class.
So she illegally ran a private email server. Deleted requested emails after a subpoena for them. Emailed classified information from an unsecure server to Sydney. Lied to Congress about it.
Those above have been proven and no one is questioning that they happened. What they are questioning is if doing the above is wrong/illegal and if something should be done about it.
Let's go through this:
So she illegally ran a private email server.
Debatable. Bush's guys used gwb43.com email addresses, Colin Powell had his own private address, etc. They only actually made it illegal for people at that level to use a private email server after Kerry took office.
Deleted requested emails after a subpoena for them.
She claims to have done it on December 5th. There was no subpoena until March 4th. They could subpoena the physical server, but don't do so because it would be terrible politics if they tried to nail the strongest female candidate for President this way and failed to turn up anything interesting. Especially given that Bush/Rove/Powell deleted all their emails. Bush and Rove did so after a subpoena from Congress.
Emailed classified information from an unsecure server to Sydney.
I don't know how unsecure it really was. You keep your software up to date, don't have a real web-facing address, etc. you're probably a lot more secure then most government sites. Haven't read anything about Classified Info to anybody. It wouldn't surprise me, but a) it's actually probably legal for her to disclose a lot of that (for example, anything classified by the State Department can be divulged by Hillary without any legal penalty because Hillary is considered to be over-ruling her subordinates on the decision to classify), and b) the number of government officials who have conversations with non-officials in which they don;t say something that some idiot has decided to classify (google "over-classification") is roughly nobody.
As for the lying to Congress about it, you just made four allegations against her, and three turned out to be bullshit. The fourth is violated every day by numerous policy-makers.
Don't think Powell got in trouble for that. IIRC the only reason we know about his is that his response to the kerfuffle this March was to say "BFD, I did it too." Which is all a quick google turned up.
Rove and Bush caught some heat, because they deleted something like 22 million emails from their server in the midst of the Congressional investigation into Bush's decision to fire a bunch of District Attorneys who were investigating corrupt pols with an 'R' behind their name. But they didn't get as much as Hillary has, probably because by '07-'08 nobody gave a shit about lame Duck Dubya; whereas today probable-Democratricf-nominee-Hillary is way more interesting then the nonexistant-probable-GOP-nominee or Lame Duck Obama.
She claims to have deleted the emails shortly after December 5th. They didn't start officially investigating (and send a subpoena) until March 4th.
A "little people" who did this and had a good lawyer would be fine. The investigation didn't start until March, in March all relevant info was sent, go away Mr. Congressman.
A "little people" who did not have a lawyer would be fucked, but in the US a "little people" without a lawyer is almost always fucked.
Th President's power as Commander-in-Chief is limited, but it's only limited to the extent that the power the US Government has to militarily Command people is limited.
Which means if something is classified under the Executive branch's authority the president can unilaterally declassify it. Legally he's simply over-ruled his underlings. Him and the VP are explicitly listed as "classification authorities, which means they are also by definition declassification authorities.
And who do you think generates the lion's share of classified info a State Department head would be talking about? The EPA?
DoD and CIA would generate some, but not all or even most.
Moreover, it's not illegal to talk about Secret classified info to people with Secret clearance, and it's not clear from any report Hillary is accused of sending the info to people who did not have that level of clearance.
Actually, legally speaking Obama decides what's classified. His authority is used by anyone else to decide what's classified, so if he tells you something that means he has over-ridden his underlings (and whatever process they use) and he hasn't broken the law. This principle has been applied by statute to the the VP so Dick Cheney was able to out Valerie Plame without legal consequences.
Since all State Dept. employees authority derives from the Secretary (whose authority is derived from Obama), then if she breaks the Classification regs on documents her department has Classified then it counts as her over-ruling her underlings; and is not illegal.
The email the republicans are looking for is the one calling for a force reduction at the embassy. This happened, so the question is, who called for it and why. This question has never been answered. Why was the embassy in a hostile country left undefended in the middle of a riot?
There was no force reduction. Even if there had been Hillary would not have been the one who could have ordered it, because AfriCom reported to Leon Penetta. Several requests for more security were turned down, but Hillary has already taken responsibility for that.
You can't be talking about a law against Secretaries of State using their own private email because Colin Powell did it, and you're not calling for his prosecution. Same goes for a law banning Secretaries from deleting the ones they think aren't official business, because he deleted 100% of his.
You won't get any real investigations from the GOP either. gwb43.com was an email server many members of their White House used for official business, Colin Powell had his own special private address, etc. so if they do a real investigation of Clinton they'll be trying a woman for something several dozen men on their side did and got away with. That is not smart politics.
Hell, what could they find out? She turned over a bunch of emails she said counted as official records. That was 30k emails. If she fucked up and missed three that's inadvertent and no Court is gonna convict a well-connected white woman for only being 99.99% right. So you'd have to find several hundred she deleted. To do that you'd have to subpoena everyone she possibly could have emailed, go through their saved emails with a fine-tooth comb, and actually come up with a bunch that were clearly (as in Beyond a Reasonable Doubt) official business.
Check the timeline. She says they were deleted "shortly after" December 5th. There was no subpoena (and thus no hold) until March 4th. Reviewing of the emails to decide which ones to delete, and which to hand over to the State Department seems to have happened in that Fall prior to December 5th.
So Congress could do a Contempt of Congress investigation under the "inherent contempt" rule, and actually imprison her for the duration of the Congressional term. But that would be a political disaster due to Dubya's use of the gwb43.com domain, including deletions after an investigation into his firing of attorneys, Colin Powell's use of his own address, etc.
Dude, you realize you just responded to a post saying she didn't turn classified info over to the Chinese, by implying she did do that? And this assertion is totally unsupported by any evidence except your refusal to trust her?
In a thread started by an article originally alleging she was being criminally investigated for something in this matter, but has since been changed to say that someone (but not her) is being investigated (but not criminally) for their decisions in which emails to turn over under FOIA?
If she can legally use her own server (which is debatable, but was also a practice of the previous administration, so it's very unlikely the people who had gwb43.com addresses or Colin Powell's private email address would prosecute that), then she can have private messages sent to that server, and she has no obligation to tell the government whether Bill is sending her naughty emails while he's doing speeches in Dubai. That's not an official record and her political opponents have absolutely no right to it.
Where it gets trickier are things like her donors giving her advice. They're probably her friends, and a friend telling the Secretary of State precisely what to do about Bibi is pretty much par for the course and I doubt Congress has the authority to force a Secretary to record all those conversations for the record; but she also owes those guys favors.
But she's a lawyer, so she probably has a very convincing case lined up explaining her reasoning for deleting those emails, and (as I mentioned) it would not suit the GOP at all to actually have her prosecuted for deleting 50k emails, because that would involve admitting their entire Bush White House should also prosecuted for deleting 22 million, and Colin Powell too. The GOP will bitch too high heaven because it helps them politically, and do nothing because that would hurt them.
She didn't ignore them. She retained the records she thought were covered by them. Whether she was actually right in her choices is another matter entirely.
Number one, people that high on the totem pole are generally the ones who classify documents (or at least the name that is used to justify the authority their minions use to classify them), which means that it is frequently legally tricky to charge them with leaking Classified info. For example let's say that something is classified under authority delegated some minion of the Secretary of State by the Secretary and ultimately the President. If the Secretary tells a reporter that information he has approved letting the reporter know, and over-ruled the minion who did the original classification. The regulation ordering everyone to send their email only to certain approved servers was also probably approved by someone at the Secretary of State level, so she probably has the same authority to say "and guess what, this is an approved server."
Given that the Constitution was written when Absolutism was the default Western form of government, your surprise that a Cabinet-level officer can do any of this shit by decree reflects the American people's inability to understand that the Constitution is actually that fucking old, and should probably be fucking refreshed; rather then reflecting any actual legal requirements of the Court system.
Number two, if the Secretary of State is gonna steal classified information she's gonna have a plan that's a wee bit different then setting up her own email server. The things China would want from a Secretary of State level person are mostly things she could say in a private phone conversation from her house (diplomatic positions, when the President's bluffing and not telling people below the Assistant Secretary level, etc.). If they did want the F-22 plans or something a private email could be useful, but only if the Secretary could convince somebody to send her the plans.
OTOH if I was an engineer for your company, the only thing of interest to China I'd have access to is those plans. The data would have to go through a) a thumb drive or b) the internet. And email is the simplest form of doing that on the internet.
The word "criminal" doesn't appear anywhere in the actual paperwork, and the DoJ says it has nothing to do with Hillary's actions. To quote politico quoting the Times:
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."
It seems like the Inspectors General are interested in why some of Hillary's emails were marked unclassified, and turned over to the public, by the State Department. While this is an investigation of a fuck-up, it is a) technically not criminal, and b) is not an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Which means the most interesting thing about this story to me is why they screwed it up so badly. Nothing in their story turned out to be true, and they shoulda known it. Was it anti-Clinton propaganda that failed to work? Is it an pro-Clinton attempt to discredit future investigations into her email server? A pro-Clinton attempt to convince Bernie fans she's actually not the candidate of Wall Street? Was it an attempt at click-bait? Or did somebody just totally fuck up that reading comprehension thing and think he had a great exclusive when what he really had was fantasy?
I suspect the latter. But speculating about all other iterations is so much more fun.
I'm not one either, but the Constitution gives the requirements for Federal elected offices, and it can't be trumped by statute, so paragraph b does not apply to Federal elected offices even if you get convicted. Thus Ollie North for Senate was perfectly legal in '94.
I suspect you've got the definition of "public office" wrong as well. "Office" implies the formal office, so even an email sent to a state.gov address would be a stretch because when you email guy_a@state.gov you don't expect everyone who works in his office to be able to bring up the email immediately, and if Guy A told you he deleted it because he ran out of space you probably wouldn't immediately forward your copy to the DoJ. A clintonemail.com address is even further removed from the definition of "public office," because clintonemail.com's address is more analogous to your physical house's address then your physical office address, so no Court is gonna go with that. "Filed" is also a difficult word for your argument, because generally there's a formal procedure when something is filed, and just receiving emails doesn't count.
In other words assuming Hillary gets away with using her own private email server, it's virtually impossible to prosecute her for anything else.
That would be a more credible argument if you explained why, precisely, anything Hillary has done is worse then you deleting an email on your company's server.
She ran her server. You run your company's server. You probably occasionally delete emails. She deleted emails.
As far as I can tell the only difference is that the government wanted hers for it's official records, and she was only able to turn over the undeleted ones. Which she claims had no bearing on her official duties. And she's probably technically right because she is a very smart lawyer, and therefore has a lawyer's grasp on when a Judge would see "official duty of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton talking to her buddy about vaguely work-related shit."
To prove an Obstruction of Justice charge there has to be some valid Executive-branch criminal investigation going on. All Hillary's faced so far is tons of questions from Congress, not a DoJ criminal investigation.
Ask yourself: "What would happen if I were employed in the federal government and mishandled government data in this same manner?"
I have a feeling the answer would be much harsher than what Hillary will get.
When she got it sent to her address it wasn't classified. The memo is regarding stuff that's ben classified since then.
Regardless it's not usually illegal to receive Classified information. Otherwise most reporters would be in jail. It's what you do with it afterwards that gets you in trouble.
And all Hillary did was receive it on her email, turn most of the emails back over to the government when asked (while deleting the rest), and then let them decide what to release.
It bothers me when I hear of regulatory organizations "investigating" to determine if a law has been broken. If the agency directly responsible for the enforcement of a law cannot immediately decide if an action is illegal how can anyone reasonably expect a regular citizen to know if they are breaking the law?
It's kinda inevitable. Especially in the US. Edge cases exist, and nobody can accurately predict which ones need to be explicitly addressed in legislation years out.
And in the US you need those years. Our system is designed so that it's very difficult to create new laws when situations change. In this case both drones and firearms are highly regulated, but Congress has never explicitly passed a law dealing with both, and probably never will because it would be really complicated to get 60 Senators, 218 Congressman, and Obama to all agree on one set of proposals (OTOH, if a Prime Minister of Canada doesn't have 155 Members of the House on his side he is by definition no longer Prime Minister, which means changing the law there is much simpler then in the US); so law enforcement basically have to make it up as they go along.
EIC doesn't do that for kids right out of high school unless they've got a baby. It's literally illegal -- one of tests for EIC with no qualifying children is that you have to be 25. It doesn't really do that even if you have a kid, because it maxes out at $2k per kid.
The last 30 years or so have seen massive economic growth, but none at low levels. At what point, precisely, are the low-level people allowed to say "Hey this pie is big enough for me to have a piece?" without everyone else explaining that in theory everything that's happened to them in the past three decadses is impossible, and therefore changing economic policy on the basis of those three decades is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, they can have you imprisoned until the end of the Congressional term for smelling funny. So yes, they have her on Contempt of Congress. They'll just never follow through on that shit because their guys did the same damn thing before she arrived on the scene.
As for perjury, that's bullshit. To perjure yourself you have to be saying something you know and believe is untrue. If Hillary is telling the truth on her timeline, believed that her private email server was legal (not a stretch, given that numerous other officials had them), and forgot what she sent Blumenthal then she's innocent.
She has already been caught deleting emails relevant to State Department. One of her friends (Sydney Blumenthal) turned over emails in another investigation from Hillary and they were not in what she disclosed to Congress. She claimed deleted emails had to do with a wedding or yoga class.
So she illegally ran a private email server.
Deleted requested emails after a subpoena for them.
Emailed classified information from an unsecure server to Sydney.
Lied to Congress about it.
Those above have been proven and no one is questioning that they happened. What they are questioning is if doing the above is wrong/illegal and if something should be done about it.
Let's go through this:
So she illegally ran a private email server.
Debatable. Bush's guys used gwb43.com email addresses, Colin Powell had his own private address, etc. They only actually made it illegal for people at that level to use a private email server after Kerry took office.
Deleted requested emails after a subpoena for them.
She claims to have done it on December 5th. There was no subpoena until March 4th. They could subpoena the physical server, but don't do so because it would be terrible politics if they tried to nail the strongest female candidate for President this way and failed to turn up anything interesting. Especially given that Bush/Rove/Powell deleted all their emails. Bush and Rove did so after a subpoena from Congress.
Emailed classified information from an unsecure server to Sydney.
I don't know how unsecure it really was. You keep your software up to date, don't have a real web-facing address, etc. you're probably a lot more secure then most government sites. Haven't read anything about Classified Info to anybody. It wouldn't surprise me, but a) it's actually probably legal for her to disclose a lot of that (for example, anything classified by the State Department can be divulged by Hillary without any legal penalty because Hillary is considered to be over-ruling her subordinates on the decision to classify), and b) the number of government officials who have conversations with non-officials in which they don;t say something that some idiot has decided to classify (google "over-classification") is roughly nobody.
As for the lying to Congress about it, you just made four allegations against her, and three turned out to be bullshit. The fourth is violated every day by numerous policy-makers.
Don't think Powell got in trouble for that. IIRC the only reason we know about his is that his response to the kerfuffle this March was to say "BFD, I did it too." Which is all a quick google turned up.
Rove and Bush caught some heat, because they deleted something like 22 million emails from their server in the midst of the Congressional investigation into Bush's decision to fire a bunch of District Attorneys who were investigating corrupt pols with an 'R' behind their name. But they didn't get as much as Hillary has, probably because by '07-'08 nobody gave a shit about lame Duck Dubya; whereas today probable-Democratricf-nominee-Hillary is way more interesting then the nonexistant-probable-GOP-nominee or Lame Duck Obama.
She claims to have deleted the emails shortly after December 5th. They didn't start officially investigating (and send a subpoena) until March 4th.
A "little people" who did this and had a good lawyer would be fine. The investigation didn't start until March, in March all relevant info was sent, go away Mr. Congressman.
A "little people" who did not have a lawyer would be fucked, but in the US a "little people" without a lawyer is almost always fucked.
Th President's power as Commander-in-Chief is limited, but it's only limited to the extent that the power the US Government has to militarily Command people is limited.
Which means if something is classified under the Executive branch's authority the president can unilaterally declassify it. Legally he's simply over-ruled his underlings. Him and the VP are explicitly listed as "classification authorities, which means they are also by definition declassification authorities.
And who do you think generates the lion's share of classified info a State Department head would be talking about? The EPA?
DoD and CIA would generate some, but not all or even most.
Moreover, it's not illegal to talk about Secret classified info to people with Secret clearance, and it's not clear from any report Hillary is accused of sending the info to people who did not have that level of clearance.
Actually, legally speaking Obama decides what's classified. His authority is used by anyone else to decide what's classified, so if he tells you something that means he has over-ridden his underlings (and whatever process they use) and he hasn't broken the law. This principle has been applied by statute to the the VP so Dick Cheney was able to out Valerie Plame without legal consequences.
Since all State Dept. employees authority derives from the Secretary (whose authority is derived from Obama), then if she breaks the Classification regs on documents her department has Classified then it counts as her over-ruling her underlings; and is not illegal.
The email the republicans are looking for is the one calling for a force reduction at the embassy. This happened, so the question is, who called for it and why. This question has never been answered. Why was the embassy in a hostile country left undefended in the middle of a riot?
There was no force reduction. Even if there had been Hillary would not have been the one who could have ordered it, because AfriCom reported to Leon Penetta. Several requests for more security were turned down, but Hillary has already taken responsibility for that.
Dude, just answer the question.
Which law are you talking about?
You can't be talking about a law against Secretaries of State using their own private email because Colin Powell did it, and you're not calling for his prosecution. Same goes for a law banning Secretaries from deleting the ones they think aren't official business, because he deleted 100% of his.
You won't get any real investigations from the GOP either. gwb43.com was an email server many members of their White House used for official business, Colin Powell had his own special private address, etc. so if they do a real investigation of Clinton they'll be trying a woman for something several dozen men on their side did and got away with. That is not smart politics.
Hell, what could they find out? She turned over a bunch of emails she said counted as official records. That was 30k emails. If she fucked up and missed three that's inadvertent and no Court is gonna convict a well-connected white woman for only being 99.99% right. So you'd have to find several hundred she deleted. To do that you'd have to subpoena everyone she possibly could have emailed, go through their saved emails with a fine-tooth comb, and actually come up with a bunch that were clearly (as in Beyond a Reasonable Doubt) official business.
And why is it a surprise that a Cabinet-level-official is sending emails with information that's classified?
Everything they deal with is Classified.
Check the timeline. She says they were deleted "shortly after" December 5th. There was no subpoena (and thus no hold) until March 4th. Reviewing of the emails to decide which ones to delete, and which to hand over to the State Department seems to have happened in that Fall prior to December 5th.
So Congress could do a Contempt of Congress investigation under the "inherent contempt" rule, and actually imprison her for the duration of the Congressional term. But that would be a political disaster due to Dubya's use of the gwb43.com domain, including deletions after an investigation into his firing of attorneys, Colin Powell's use of his own address, etc.
Dude, you realize you just responded to a post saying she didn't turn classified info over to the Chinese, by implying she did do that? And this assertion is totally unsupported by any evidence except your refusal to trust her?
In a thread started by an article originally alleging she was being criminally investigated for something in this matter, but has since been changed to say that someone (but not her) is being investigated (but not criminally) for their decisions in which emails to turn over under FOIA?
Only if they were official records.
If she can legally use her own server (which is debatable, but was also a practice of the previous administration, so it's very unlikely the people who had gwb43.com addresses or Colin Powell's private email address would prosecute that), then she can have private messages sent to that server, and she has no obligation to tell the government whether Bill is sending her naughty emails while he's doing speeches in Dubai. That's not an official record and her political opponents have absolutely no right to it.
Where it gets trickier are things like her donors giving her advice. They're probably her friends, and a friend telling the Secretary of State precisely what to do about Bibi is pretty much par for the course and I doubt Congress has the authority to force a Secretary to record all those conversations for the record; but she also owes those guys favors.
But she's a lawyer, so she probably has a very convincing case lined up explaining her reasoning for deleting those emails, and (as I mentioned) it would not suit the GOP at all to actually have her prosecuted for deleting 50k emails, because that would involve admitting their entire Bush White House should also prosecuted for deleting 22 million, and Colin Powell too. The GOP will bitch too high heaven because it helps them politically, and do nothing because that would hurt them.
She didn't ignore them. She retained the records she thought were covered by them. Whether she was actually right in her choices is another matter entirely.
But you're not the Secretary of State.
Number one, people that high on the totem pole are generally the ones who classify documents (or at least the name that is used to justify the authority their minions use to classify them), which means that it is frequently legally tricky to charge them with leaking Classified info. For example let's say that something is classified under authority delegated some minion of the Secretary of State by the Secretary and ultimately the President. If the Secretary tells a reporter that information he has approved letting the reporter know, and over-ruled the minion who did the original classification. The regulation ordering everyone to send their email only to certain approved servers was also probably approved by someone at the Secretary of State level, so she probably has the same authority to say "and guess what, this is an approved server."
Given that the Constitution was written when Absolutism was the default Western form of government, your surprise that a Cabinet-level officer can do any of this shit by decree reflects the American people's inability to understand that the Constitution is actually that fucking old, and should probably be fucking refreshed; rather then reflecting any actual legal requirements of the Court system.
Number two, if the Secretary of State is gonna steal classified information she's gonna have a plan that's a wee bit different then setting up her own email server. The things China would want from a Secretary of State level person are mostly things she could say in a private phone conversation from her house (diplomatic positions, when the President's bluffing and not telling people below the Assistant Secretary level, etc.). If they did want the F-22 plans or something a private email could be useful, but only if the Secretary could convince somebody to send her the plans.
OTOH if I was an engineer for your company, the only thing of interest to China I'd have access to is those plans. The data would have to go through a) a thumb drive or b) the internet. And email is the simplest form of doing that on the internet.
Actually it's the New York Times fucking up.
The word "criminal" doesn't appear anywhere in the actual paperwork, and the DoJ says it has nothing to do with Hillary's actions. To quote politico quoting the Times:
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."
It seems like the Inspectors General are interested in why some of Hillary's emails were marked unclassified, and turned over to the public, by the State Department. While this is an investigation of a fuck-up, it is a) technically not criminal, and b) is not an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Which means the most interesting thing about this story to me is why they screwed it up so badly. Nothing in their story turned out to be true, and they shoulda known it. Was it anti-Clinton propaganda that failed to work? Is it an pro-Clinton attempt to discredit future investigations into her email server? A pro-Clinton attempt to convince Bernie fans she's actually not the candidate of Wall Street? Was it an attempt at click-bait? Or did somebody just totally fuck up that reading comprehension thing and think he had a great exclusive when what he really had was fantasy?
I suspect the latter. But speculating about all other iterations is so much more fun.
You can't be a lawyer.
I'm not one either, but the Constitution gives the requirements for Federal elected offices, and it can't be trumped by statute, so paragraph b does not apply to Federal elected offices even if you get convicted. Thus Ollie North for Senate was perfectly legal in '94.
I suspect you've got the definition of "public office" wrong as well. "Office" implies the formal office, so even an email sent to a state.gov address would be a stretch because when you email guy_a@state.gov you don't expect everyone who works in his office to be able to bring up the email immediately, and if Guy A told you he deleted it because he ran out of space you probably wouldn't immediately forward your copy to the DoJ. A clintonemail.com address is even further removed from the definition of "public office," because clintonemail.com's address is more analogous to your physical house's address then your physical office address, so no Court is gonna go with that. "Filed" is also a difficult word for your argument, because generally there's a formal procedure when something is filed, and just receiving emails doesn't count.
In other words assuming Hillary gets away with using her own private email server, it's virtually impossible to prosecute her for anything else.
That would be a more credible argument if you explained why, precisely, anything Hillary has done is worse then you deleting an email on your company's server.
She ran her server. You run your company's server. You probably occasionally delete emails. She deleted emails.
As far as I can tell the only difference is that the government wanted hers for it's official records, and she was only able to turn over the undeleted ones. Which she claims had no bearing on her official duties. And she's probably technically right because she is a very smart lawyer, and therefore has a lawyer's grasp on when a Judge would see "official duty of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton talking to her buddy about vaguely work-related shit."
Nope.
35, Natural-born citizen, and not a two-term President already. That's it.
States can ban felons from state-level offices, but the Federal ones are pretty much a free-for-all.
To prove an Obstruction of Justice charge there has to be some valid Executive-branch criminal investigation going on. All Hillary's faced so far is tons of questions from Congress, not a DoJ criminal investigation.
Ask yourself: "What would happen if I were employed in the federal government and mishandled government data in this same manner?"
I have a feeling the answer would be much harsher than what Hillary will get.
When she got it sent to her address it wasn't classified. The memo is regarding stuff that's ben classified since then.
Regardless it's not usually illegal to receive Classified information. Otherwise most reporters would be in jail. It's what you do with it afterwards that gets you in trouble.
And all Hillary did was receive it on her email, turn most of the emails back over to the government when asked (while deleting the rest), and then let them decide what to release.
It bothers me when I hear of regulatory organizations "investigating" to determine if a law has been broken. If the agency directly responsible for the enforcement of a law cannot immediately decide if an action is illegal how can anyone reasonably expect a regular citizen to know if they are breaking the law?
It's kinda inevitable. Especially in the US. Edge cases exist, and nobody can accurately predict which ones need to be explicitly addressed in legislation years out.
And in the US you need those years. Our system is designed so that it's very difficult to create new laws when situations change. In this case both drones and firearms are highly regulated, but Congress has never explicitly passed a law dealing with both, and probably never will because it would be really complicated to get 60 Senators, 218 Congressman, and Obama to all agree on one set of proposals (OTOH, if a Prime Minister of Canada doesn't have 155 Members of the House on his side he is by definition no longer Prime Minister, which means changing the law there is much simpler then in the US); so law enforcement basically have to make it up as they go along.
EIC doesn't do that for kids right out of high school unless they've got a baby. It's literally illegal -- one of tests for EIC with no qualifying children is that you have to be 25. It doesn't really do that even if you have a kid, because it maxes out at $2k per kid.
The last 30 years or so have seen massive economic growth, but none at low levels. At what point, precisely, are the low-level people allowed to say "Hey this pie is big enough for me to have a piece?" without everyone else explaining that in theory everything that's happened to them in the past three decadses is impossible, and therefore changing economic policy on the basis of those three decades is stupid.
Night sights work fine.
If the Spanish military can't take a drone down at night I'm sure Obama'd be happy to lend them something that can.