Posted on Mar 30, 2016
Why a no-indictment for Hillary Clinton would still be a problem for America
2.1K
4
14
0
0
0
"Either Clinton is charged with a crime for mishandling classified information on her private server — an outcome, this group thinks, that should be devastatingly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Or the Justice Department will squelch the indictment out of a politically motivated desire to protect the likely Democratic presidential nominee. The only disagreement here involves whether Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch will act on her own or under orders from President Obama.
Heads, Clinton’s indicted; tails, they’re corrupt. For this crowd, there is no outcome here that contemplates independent, sober-minded prosecutors looking at the facts and the law and reaching a contrary conclusion.
This attitude presents a problem, not so much for Clinton — she’ll be happy to accept the no-indictment outcome, and the people who reject it will never be Clinton voters anyway — as for the criminal justice system. It bears some thinking at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI about whether there is some way to mitigate the suspicion by making more information public than is the norm.
What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails
Play Video1:56
The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Once, there was a statutory solution to this understandable skepticism, albeit a hugely imperfect one, in the form of the independent counsel law. Clinton knows better than anyone how prolonged and risky this route can be; the independent counsel originally named to investigate the Whitewater investment by Bill and Hillary Clinton ended up with Monica Lewinsky.
Even now that the statute has lapsed, the Justice Department retains the authority, by regulation, to appoint a special counsel when the attorney general “determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and “would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”
There’s no indication that Justice has contemplated this step; indeed, it’s not clear it has even determined that a “criminal investigation” is warranted. In any event, turning to a special counsel now, with the clock ticking toward Election Day, would not serve the public well. What it needs is maximum information speedily revealed."
Heads, Clinton’s indicted; tails, they’re corrupt. For this crowd, there is no outcome here that contemplates independent, sober-minded prosecutors looking at the facts and the law and reaching a contrary conclusion.
This attitude presents a problem, not so much for Clinton — she’ll be happy to accept the no-indictment outcome, and the people who reject it will never be Clinton voters anyway — as for the criminal justice system. It bears some thinking at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI about whether there is some way to mitigate the suspicion by making more information public than is the norm.
What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails
Play Video1:56
The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Once, there was a statutory solution to this understandable skepticism, albeit a hugely imperfect one, in the form of the independent counsel law. Clinton knows better than anyone how prolonged and risky this route can be; the independent counsel originally named to investigate the Whitewater investment by Bill and Hillary Clinton ended up with Monica Lewinsky.
Even now that the statute has lapsed, the Justice Department retains the authority, by regulation, to appoint a special counsel when the attorney general “determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted” and “would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”
There’s no indication that Justice has contemplated this step; indeed, it’s not clear it has even determined that a “criminal investigation” is warranted. In any event, turning to a special counsel now, with the clock ticking toward Election Day, would not serve the public well. What it needs is maximum information speedily revealed."
Why a no-indictment for Hillary Clinton would still be a problem for America
Posted from washingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
Capt Walter Miller ,
Why would no indictment still be bad - perception of being above the law and the perception of a double standard for those both on the left and in political power. Just the fact Hillary Clinton is still running for office instead of recusing herself till this issue is cleared up (or at least making an effort to clear it up expeditiously) screams double standard and a total disregard for the law.
The perception is she mishandled classified information and emails to a worse degree (exponentially worse) then GEN Petraeus did. GEN Petraeus lost his position and was punished, but since Hillary Clinton is political elite she gets to run for the highest political office in the land and claim 'she's not a crook'? All of the rest of us know that we would already have been found guilty and be sitting in Fort Leavenworth working on our newest model S1A2 Shank, adding a new tattoo to our right arm jailhouse sleeve, and NOT running for the office of POTUS.
Worse, the political left would have already convicted her in the press if she had been from the political right. This complete and utter double standard is what has so many people furious and completely disgusted with the federal government. My fear is that too many people are as disgusted now as those that participated in the Boston Tea Party were back then.....and we know where that led.
So yes, this is bad for the country - and repercussions from her actions could be with us for the next couple decades in politics, how people view government and the political left/elite, and even how others handle classified data....if she can do what she did how can the government then hold anyone responsible for lesser crimes?
It is all just disgusting.....completely and utterly disgusting to the point I start thinking I should either run for office, or go live somewhere remote and try to ignore all this....
Why would no indictment still be bad - perception of being above the law and the perception of a double standard for those both on the left and in political power. Just the fact Hillary Clinton is still running for office instead of recusing herself till this issue is cleared up (or at least making an effort to clear it up expeditiously) screams double standard and a total disregard for the law.
The perception is she mishandled classified information and emails to a worse degree (exponentially worse) then GEN Petraeus did. GEN Petraeus lost his position and was punished, but since Hillary Clinton is political elite she gets to run for the highest political office in the land and claim 'she's not a crook'? All of the rest of us know that we would already have been found guilty and be sitting in Fort Leavenworth working on our newest model S1A2 Shank, adding a new tattoo to our right arm jailhouse sleeve, and NOT running for the office of POTUS.
Worse, the political left would have already convicted her in the press if she had been from the political right. This complete and utter double standard is what has so many people furious and completely disgusted with the federal government. My fear is that too many people are as disgusted now as those that participated in the Boston Tea Party were back then.....and we know where that led.
So yes, this is bad for the country - and repercussions from her actions could be with us for the next couple decades in politics, how people view government and the political left/elite, and even how others handle classified data....if she can do what she did how can the government then hold anyone responsible for lesser crimes?
It is all just disgusting.....completely and utterly disgusting to the point I start thinking I should either run for office, or go live somewhere remote and try to ignore all this....
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The author is saying that if Clinton is not indicted people will assume cover-up due to privilege.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It pains me to see that people who are supposed to be "leaders", cannot be held accountable for their own actions. The complacency of the general public is also a damn shame. Crucify Civilian/Military members but not if you're a politician.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Another example of a turd politician getting special treatment for their misconduct. I've seen a SSgt get burned for just accidentally making a copy of classified information on the wrong copy machine! He did not get no second chance. Why should she? She should set the example and take whatever minor punishment for her actions.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google