3 ms·

Only the President has absolute authority to declassify at will. And her major crime wasn’t mishandling classified materials. It was destroying evidence that wa

Only the President has absolute authority to declassify at will. And her major crime wasn’t mishandling classified materials. It was destroying evidence that was the subject of a congressional subpoena. She probably did it because she realized that by comingling her personal and official business, she exposed her embarrassing (or worse) personal affairs to being disclosed to Congress. Look how much political damage Podesta’s leaked emails did to her. Imagine every single email she sent and received for several years.

shadowgovt 5y ago
And yet, Congress has the power to impeach for destroying evidence in violation of a subpoena and chose not to. Make of that what we will.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  That’s very disingenuous. Impeachment is extremely rare. The bar for conviction, 2/3rds of the Senate, is essentially insurmountable. The decision to impeach is essentially a political one, and it is rarely in anyone’s interests to go down that road. Also, by the time it was clear that the FBI had decided to let her get away with it, it was only a few months until the election. Impeaching under those circumstances would be seen as undemocratic and trying to take the choice away from the people.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I'm not sure why we're calling it disingenuous. I believe you have correctly described how the system works. What aspect of that description is disingenuous? The decision to impeach a Cabinet member is a political decision. I believe you have correctly identified why it would have been an inexpedient political decision. And ultimately, the consequences for her actions were that the American people chose not to elect her President. The consequences of all of these political interlocks are that even though the ultimate authority rests with the President, it is de facto delegated to the Cabinet as well, because Congress cannot hold them accountable without implicitly holding the President accountable. The President, of course, could also hold a Secretary accountable; in this situation, the President chose not to, so no harm no foul.
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      She had been out of office for two (plus?) years when the scandal came to light, so no, President Obama could not have done anything to discipline her. I don’t know what you’re talking about. And like I said, it’s not really about the classified information. It’s about brazenly violating a subpoena by destroying evidence. If you or I did that, we’d be in jail. Your response is: well, Congress should have impeached her. But that’s not a substitute for criminal prosecution. And for that matter, being “punished” by not being elected President is also not a substitute for criminal prosecution.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        You're correct; I was mistaken on the timeline. No impeachment to be had if she's not in office. That having been said, there's no evidence she ordered the server wiped in response to a subpoena. In fact, when she ordered the server wiped the subpoena hadn't been issued, it appears (https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-evidence-clinton-ordered-deletion-of-subpoenaed-email-archive/ https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-e...). Can't really prosecute someone for destroying evidence they weren't in possession of, and can't really prosecute someone for destroying evidence they weren't aware was subpoenaed. Sounds like an unfortunate game-of-telephone error.
        legalcorrection 5y ago
        You could probably impeach after they leave office. Impeachment is for both removal and disqualification.

shadowgovt 5y ago

And yet, Congress has the power to impeach for destroying evidence in violation of a subpoena and chose not to. Make of that what we will.

legalcorrection 5y ago
That’s very disingenuous. Impeachment is extremely rare. The bar for conviction, 2/3rds of the Senate, is essentially insurmountable. The decision to impeach is essentially a political one, and it is rarely in anyone’s interests to go down that road. Also, by the time it was clear that the FBI had decided to let her get away with it, it was only a few months until the election. Impeaching under those circumstances would be seen as undemocratic and trying to take the choice away from the people.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I'm not sure why we're calling it disingenuous. I believe you have correctly described how the system works. What aspect of that description is disingenuous? The decision to impeach a Cabinet member is a political decision. I believe you have correctly identified why it would have been an inexpedient political decision. And ultimately, the consequences for her actions were that the American people chose not to elect her President. The consequences of all of these political interlocks are that even though the ultimate authority rests with the President, it is de facto delegated to the Cabinet as well, because Congress cannot hold them accountable without implicitly holding the President accountable. The President, of course, could also hold a Secretary accountable; in this situation, the President chose not to, so no harm no foul.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    She had been out of office for two (plus?) years when the scandal came to light, so no, President Obama could not have done anything to discipline her. I don’t know what you’re talking about. And like I said, it’s not really about the classified information. It’s about brazenly violating a subpoena by destroying evidence. If you or I did that, we’d be in jail. Your response is: well, Congress should have impeached her. But that’s not a substitute for criminal prosecution. And for that matter, being “punished” by not being elected President is also not a substitute for criminal prosecution.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      You're correct; I was mistaken on the timeline. No impeachment to be had if she's not in office. That having been said, there's no evidence she ordered the server wiped in response to a subpoena. In fact, when she ordered the server wiped the subpoena hadn't been issued, it appears (https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-evidence-clinton-ordered-deletion-of-subpoenaed-email-archive/ https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-e...). Can't really prosecute someone for destroying evidence they weren't in possession of, and can't really prosecute someone for destroying evidence they weren't aware was subpoenaed. Sounds like an unfortunate game-of-telephone error.
      - legalcorrection 5y ago
        You could probably impeach after they leave office. Impeachment is for both removal and disqualification.