Libertarian VP Candidate Blows Republicans' Email Hopes To Smithereens
But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.
Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
So there you go, Republicans. Your Libertarian challengers are blowing up your smear campaigns right and left.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans
= new reply since forum marked as read
There are two issues most often under discussion:
1. We know she messed up in maintaining work correspondence such that it would not be properly archived and available to FOIA requests. Was that intentional? It's hard to prove intent, but I put forth a perspective on that at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512101411
2. If she is found to have mishandled classified information, there has been conflicting about whether or not intent matters. But to use your quote about someone who "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" -- the word "remove" is interesting when it comes to electronic data, since having a copy of it does not remove it from its other location. But she did arguably keep copies of--let's call it potentially classified--information at an unauthorized location (wherever her server was), and also kept it personally accessible long after she left her position as SOS.
But for the justice dep't to take action, I think there would have to be some pretty unambiguous evidence, so the question may really be one of what else the FBI may know (or learn).
Also of interest in your quote is the penalty, which could simply be a fine ("shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both"
. So even if she were indicted (at least under the statute you quote), something like a "no contest" plea with a financial penalty would probably end it. As others have pointed out, people in these kinds of positions have also had the security clearances revoked, but I don't know that there is a requirement for such a penalty (and a president could presumably override that anyway).
Even then, we're talking about the penalties regarding classified information. The penalties for the FOIA related stuff is, as far as I can see, basically non-existent, unless they do indeed manage to go to intent/obstruction.
There is one other issue which probably has more explosive potential, but also is the one where is the least known real evidence, and that has to do with the lack of a sufficient wall between her actions as SOS and activities within the Clinton Foundation. But talk of that is little more than speculation.
Bottom line, I still wouldn't put any money on her being indicted... and if she is, she may be able to plea out pretty harmlessly. But that doesn't mean that Trump can't benefit from all this.
I deleted it on the off chance it would offend somebody. We need a gif with a fairy like her:
