This may be the one and only thing I agree with Trump on: Clinton should have been prosecuted over the email server affair, even if only for lying about it.
Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority.
See:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Whether it's her use of elaborate mechanisms to circumvent federal law, lying underoath or the astounding acceptance of foreign donations for a charity that directly supports her family (uhh, bribe?), I don't understand why her actions are excused away by otherwise rational people.
See: State Dept. official accused of offering 'quid pro quo' in Clinton email scandal
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-c...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... for an example of a similar but worse violation of the same laws with no consequences to those responsible.
While she is no longer officially a member of the administration, you cannot think that the administration would wish to embarrass her with, say, a legal proceeding that could result in jail time. You'll have to go back a loooong way to find any administration that brought a legal action against a high ranking former member of said administration.
And this applies to both parties. No matter what the law is, it is unequally enforced. Always has been, and I see no prospect of that changing.
Nowhere else is this more apparent than in the email scandal.
The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. She was different, insofar that her boss wasn't a member of the State Department, he was the head of the executive branch.
Additionally, quoting legal code is pretty ignorant; it's ignoring the huge impact case law has on the US justice system.
Finally, she didn't lie under oath, in the sense of a legal "lie". The word doesn't mean the same in colloquial speak as it does in terms of a legal definition.
We can substitute the word with "maliciously manipulative" or "intellectually dishonest" if you'd prefer.
Not for circumventing record keeping and transparency measures?
Not for destroying information relevant to an investigation?
I'm with you. The horse is anything but dead - take for instance the "quid pro quo" FBI 302's from todays news.
I like the idea of a faction of the FBI standing up to Comey.
There's not any FBI agents creating an insurgency or anything. They are just doing their jobs.
The field reports disclosed that the State Department put a lot of pressure on the FBI - in at least one case (even offering benefits in direct exchange) - to alter the classification of Clinton documents during the investigation.
In this specific case ultimately the classification of the document in question was not changed.
Definitely more corruption out of the State Department. But really doesn't speak anything of fractionalization of FBI.
Remember Clinton was only invited (at the best time that suits her) for a loose interview that wasn't recorded, and only brief notes done by an FBI agent. As far as we know, they even lack asking her important questions.
Truly amazing to see this set of double standards on what's so many call the most free and law-abiding soil in the history of this planet.
http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-J...
>Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.
This doesn't seem right at all. Whether they're recording the interview or not, you can say something that's false and material, and even if it doesn't actually mislead (because the agents know the truth of the matter), I believe you can be prosecuted under 18 USC 1001[1].
[1] https://popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-s...