Did Hillary Commit a Felony?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

That kinda fits better than larceny or theft.

That's an oversimplification. Embezzlement charges are almost never going to be brought when the property in question is something like an email. Larceny is more appropriate.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's an oversimplification. Embezzlement charges are almost never going to be brought when the property in question is something like an email. Larceny is more appropriate.

I bow to you superior legal knowledge. Judges (and lawyers) on TV never quite seem to predict the outcome accurately, but rather are more adept at describing, or explaining the outcome, once it has happened.

Edited March 5, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I bow to you superior legal knowledge. Judges (and lawyers) on TV never quite seem to predict the outcome accurately, but rather are more adept at describing, or explaining the outcome, once it has happened.

Well, you know I'm back at law school right now so I can sit for the CA Bar, and we just covered larceny and embezzlement last week so this is very fresh in my head. One of the things pointed out to us is that when it comes to charging for a theft-based crime, you need to be precise or it can backfire on you. It's not like where you can charge for 1st and 2nd degree murder -- you can't go for embezzlement where larceny is really the appropriate charge (and yeah, I think there is an argument for larceny here). But then again, most jurisdictions have consolidated theft statutes anyway, which avoids the "w.the.f do I charge this person with" issue. And this looks like one of those, since it mentions larceny and embezzlement. So this is really only an issue about nomenclature of the offense, as opposed to what statute she could be charged under.

Edit: apparently, there is an acronym that triggers the no-no filter that I used.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Barack 0bola

[Sousuke 1,214]

Prosecuted or not, convicted or not, this, in my opinion, should take Hillary out of the 2016 field. This is a big deal.

Wait what? Can't tell if this is sarcasm.

[khwaidee1 196]

Prosecuted or not, convicted or not, this, in my opinion, should take Hillary out of the 2016 field. This is a big deal.

Why, we are wrapping up a two term guy who did what he wanted regardless of the law or inconveniences like the Constitution. Why should some secret e-mail account set up right after she was sworn in and set to expire right before the campaign be any big deal. I think she agreed to release 300 of the e-mails, I'm sure there was some good reason most people won't understand or care about.

[rlogan 2,036]

Why, we are wrapping up a two term guy who did what he wanted regardless of the law or inconveniences like the Constitution. Why should some secret e-mail account set up right after she was sworn in and set to expire right before the campaign be any big deal. I think she agreed to release 300 of the e-mails, I'm sure there was some good reason most people won't understand or care about.

The media and electorate are bizarre for what they excuse vs. what they never forgive. War crimes are popular with the electorate. Nobody is ever prosecuted for them, and they get re-elected even when it becomes clear they would be hung if tried at the Hague. A candidate who lets out a whoop after a primary though - that will hound him forever.

Joe six pack doesn't care about private emails anywhere near how he cares about the president getting a ####### from a staffer. Or if he is a secret Muslim. Libya was to a large degree Clinton's war. It was based on lies, as usual, and the results catastrophic, as usual. But we killed a lot of Muslims and took down the leader of a country - we're so awesome.

Nixon is the only one in my lifetime that suffered any real consequences for anything he did and it wasn't for killing millions of people and running a secret illegal bombing war outside Viet Nam. It was for a level of domestic spying that is laughable when compared to what the government is doing now.

[Boiler 43,401]

Laws are for little people, she is a Clinton.

[khwaidee1 196]

The media and electorate are bizarre for what they excuse vs. what they never forgive. War crimes are popular with the electorate. Nobody is ever prosecuted for them, and they get re-elected even when it becomes clear they would be hung if tried at the Hague. A candidate who lets out a whoop after a primary though - that will hound him forever.

Joe six pack doesn't care about private emails anywhere near how he cares about the president getting a ####### from a staffer. Or if he is a secret Muslim. Libya was to a large degree Clinton's war. It was based on lies, as usual, and the results catastrophic, as usual. But we killed a lot of Muslims and took down the leader of a country - we're so awesome.

Nixon is the only one in my lifetime that suffered any real consequences for anything he did and it wasn't for killing millions of people and running a secret illegal bombing war outside Viet Nam. It was for a level of domestic spying that is laughable when compared to what the government is doing now.

Agreed. And, unfortunately, I believe a large segment of the electorate is more concerned about what they are going to get out of it than what is good for the country, thus the empty promises. I really liked the free community college pitch though, very creative. Two years free to everybody so we can be competitive in the world market. Never mind that most community colleges are just remedial courses for what the students should have learned in high school. Real competitive.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wait what? Can't tell if this is sarcasm.

No, it's not sarcasm. This is a big deal. There's no justification that I can think of for a Secretary of State not utilizing - not even having - an official email account for official business.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If charged, will she go to trial? If convicted, will Obama pardon her?

Could you be more specific about which felony. There are many to choose from over the last 25 years or so

[rlogan 2,036]

Agreed. And, unfortunately, I believe a large segment of the electorate is more concerned about what they are going to get out of it than what is good for the country, thus the empty promises. I really liked the free community college pitch though, very creative. Two years free to everybody so we can be competitive in the world market. Never mind that most community colleges are just remedial courses for what the students should have learned in high school. Real competitive.

We're homeschooling and the wrath we get caused us to read a lot of literature on Anti-Intellectualism in the USA. This is just the kind of thing that is marketed to an anti-intellectual society: everyone gets a high school degree whether they can read or not, so it follows everyone should get college degrees too. PhD's even. We used to lead the world in proportion of population with college degrees. This will put us right back on top.

In an anti-intellectual society political contests are like football games. The only thing important is whether our team wins and the rules don't have anything to do with the constitution. Why should it? Talk about outdated - the thing is a couple of centuries old.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[lostinblue 1,989]

[decocker 7,198]

let's drop her in the potomac and see if she floats!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

let's drop her in the potomac and see if she floats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g