Shut the Hell Up, Hillary Won’t Be Indicted
There is absolutely no logical reason to believe for a moment that Hillary Clinton will be indicted for her damn emails. This notion is starting to develop into Benghazi 2.0, something anti-Hillary bots will be chanting about for decades. If Clinton wins the election, we’ll be hearing conservatives along with Bernie Bros will be calling for her arrest three years into her first term.
As the Federal Bureau of Investigation nears the end of its inquiry, it becomes more and more clear that the general American public doesn’t understand the rules regarded the classification of federal information. The calls for a Clinton indictment is nothing more than desperation. While the news debates whether or not she even constituted a federal crime, the people who have been hating Clinton for decades are already grabbing their pitchforks.
“Whoever knowingly and willfully … discloses or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States … shall be fined … or imprisoned.” — 18 USC, Section 798
To even violate the law that everyone is up in arms about, you have to know that you are dealing with specifically classified information and you have to disclose it with people who are or related to enemies of the United States.
The Espionage Act of 1917 is what makes this a federal crime, a felony punishable by up to ten years in the case of releasing sensitive national security information. The last person of incredible reference to stare the Espionage Act down? Edward Snowden, in June of 2013, was charged after releasing documents which exposed the National Security Agency’s PRISM Surveillance Program. Snowden’s official charges were lised as the “unauthorized communication of national defense information” which led to “willful communication of classified intelligence with unauthorized people”.
There’s a bit of a difference between Snowden and Clinton in this sense — where one literally released data (and I applaud him for doing so. I openly endorse Edward Snowden as a patriot who served his country well through reporting unconstitutional measures within our government) and the other had an ‘unprotected’ email server. There is a fundamental difference between taking government information and throwing it to the crowds and believing the information you have is secured.
If you believe she purposely attributed mass emails to unspecified and “unamerican” targets, please readjust your tinfoil hats.
Nearly 2,100 emails on her email server were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department, a mere percentage of what was held within the so-called scandal. Of these, only 65 were deemed “secret” and 22 deemed “top secret”. If you find this outrageous, why don’t you look into the George W. Bush White House email scandal of 2007. Conducting governmental business such as the Bush Administration did is a violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, along with the Hatch Act of 1939. Over five million emails may have been lost during this specific scandal.
Although Clinton hasn’t been helping her case, with a Politifact ruling her as “mostly false” after claiming her predecessors had done what she had done in the past, previous cases mixed with logical interpretation of what’s going on now lead to the open conclusion that an indictment is not on the table.
Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.
Many politicians use private addresses, but private servers like the one Clinton used are rarely seen, said John Wonderlich, a policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group focused on government transparency, for a prior PolitiFact story.