You are not correctly restating what I've said. I never said "Officers" wouldn't/couldn't be arrested or prosecuted. I also never said there was case law prev

You are not correctly restating what I've said. I never said "Officers" wouldn't/couldn't be arrested or prosecuted. I also never said there was case law preventing the DoJ from prosecuting "Officers". I said it's ignorant to cite federal statute without also including how the courts have historically interpreted that federal statute (that's called "case law", but you know that). It can be, at best, immensely misleading when a layperson does it, and possibly manipulative when an attorney does it, considering they should know that legal parlance is significantly different from plain English, and how a court interprets legal parlance can be even further from a plain English meaning. You are, frankly, being a little rude, and unfortunately I believe you are doing so intentionally. In the interest of keeping HN light, I will not continue this conversation. I urge readers to look into specific case law surrounding the exposure of classified documents. There have been a number of articles describing why prosecuting Clinton could not possibly result in a conviction, despite the apparently clear statue. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-... http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence-claim-about-clinton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352 http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal-idUSKCN0ZM04C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-email-case-compares-similar-fbi-probes-n604856 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-em...