Hillary Clinton's Legal Troubles: Breaking Laws, Evading Consequences?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official communications while Secretary of State sparked a controversy that culminated in an FBI investigation. While the FBI found Clinton's server did not contain clearly marked classified information, federal agencies deemed 100 emails should've been classified. Clinton's actions were deemed extremely careless, but no charges were filed as she didn't act with criminal intent. However, the incident fuelled perceptions of double standards, with many believing political elites aren't held accountable like everyone else.

Unauthorised removal and retention of classified documents

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official communications while serving as Secretary of State sparked controversy and led to an FBI investigation. The investigation focused on whether Clinton's handling of classified information broke the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1924, which pertains to the unauthorised removal and retention of classified documents or materials.

What is 18 U.S.C. § 1924?

18 U.S.C. § 1924 makes it a federal crime for any officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the US government to knowingly remove classified documents or materials from their designated locations without authorisation and retain them in an unauthorised area. The statute requires proof that the individual intended to retain the documents at an unauthorised location. Mishandling classified documents is a violation of national security and can potentially harm the United States and its interests.

The Case Against Hillary Clinton

The FBI investigation revealed that Clinton sent and received classified information via email on a private, non-governmental server during her tenure as Secretary of State. This included at least 671 emails containing classified information, with 65 deemed "Secret" and 22 "Top Secret". The investigation also uncovered an additional 2,093 emails retroactively designated as confidential by the State Department.

Clinton's primary defence was that she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time they were sent or received. However, strict laws govern the accessing and storage of classified government information, and ignorance of classification is not typically considered a valid defence.

Outcome

The FBI investigation concluded that Clinton had been extremely careless but did not recommend filing charges, as they found no evidence of criminal intent, which is the historical standard for pursuing prosecution. The Department of Justice supported this decision, and no charges were filed against Clinton related to unauthorised removal and retention of classified documents.

Use of personal email for official business

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official communications during her tenure as Secretary of State sparked controversy and led to an FBI investigation. While Clinton maintained that her actions complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, critics argued that she violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents.

Clinton's decision to use a personal email server was attributed to convenience, and she asserted that it fell within the boundaries of federal law. However, experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her actions violated federal statutes and State Department protocols governing record-keeping. The controversy centred on whether Clinton's server contained classified information and if she had knowingly sent or received such information.

The FBI investigation concluded that Clinton's server did not contain any emails that were clearly marked as classified at the time they were sent or received. However, federal agencies retroactively determined that some emails should have been deemed classified. This included 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". Additionally, Clinton's own State Department issued a memo asking employees not to use personal email, which contradicted her actions.

The investigation also revealed that Clinton's server was potentially vulnerable to hacking, and there were reported attempts by hackers to access her server. While no evidence of successful hacking was found, the vulnerability raised security concerns.

The FBI ultimately decided not to pursue charges against Clinton, concluding that she had been extremely careless but lacked criminal intent. This decision sparked a debate about double standards, with commentators arguing that there are different rules for political elites and the general public.

Gross negligence under the Espionage Act

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while at the Department of State has sparked a political and legal debate. The controversy centres on whether Clinton's handling of classified information on a private, non-governmental server violated the Espionage Act, specifically the charge of "gross negligence".

The Espionage Act, enacted during World War I, makes it a felony for anyone "entrusted with... information relating to the national defense" to allow that information to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through "gross negligence". The statute does not explicitly mention intent, but legal experts argue that "gross negligence" is not sufficient for criminal charges and that intent is required.

FBI Director James Comey, who led the investigation into Clinton's email server, concluded that while Clinton's actions were ""extremely careless," they did not rise to the level of "gross negligence" required for prosecution under the Espionage Act. Comey stated that there was no evidence of willful intent and that Clinton did not intentionally share government secrets with unauthorised individuals. He also noted that Clinton's handling of classified information did not meet the legal requirement of being "removed from its proper place", as the information remained within the government's possession.

Legal scholars and defence attorneys have supported Comey's interpretation, arguing that previous cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act have involved clear evidence of intent. They contend that "extreme carelessness" does not meet the legal threshold for "gross negligence". Additionally, they highlight the challenge of applying the Espionage Act in the digital age, where information can be easily accessed and shared without physically removing it from its original location.

However, critics of Comey's decision argue that the statute explicitly mentions "gross negligence" and that Clinton's actions met this standard. They point to the large number of classified emails found on Clinton's private server and her failure to ensure the security of sensitive information. Some have suggested that Clinton's actions could have compromised national security and that she should be held accountable.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act in the Clinton email controversy highlights the complexities of interpreting and applying the law, especially in the digital age. While Clinton's actions were deemed careless, they were not considered criminal due to the absence of intent and the specific legal requirements of the Espionage Act. Nonetheless, the controversy has fuelled discussions about the consistency of legal standards and the potential influence of political considerations.

Violation of the Federal Records Act

Hillary Clinton has been accused of violating the Federal Records Act, a law that requires federal officials to retain all incoming and outgoing hard copy and email correspondence as part of the agency record. While serving as Secretary of State, Clinton used her personal email account and kept all of her emails on a private server in her home, instead of using an official government email account. This meant that none of her email correspondence was preserved on the agency's servers during her tenure.

The Federal Records Act requires agencies to retain official communications, including all work-related emails, and prohibits government employees from removing or destroying relevant records. By using a private email server, Clinton may have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Watchdog groups and legal experts argue that she undermined the law's intent for transparency and public access to agency records.

The exclusivity of Clinton's use of a personal email account is a key issue. It is considered less secure than a government-issued email account, particularly for the position of Secretary of State, where email security is of utmost importance. There are also concerns about who had access to her emails and the efficiency and accuracy of separating official documents from personal ones.

While Clinton's defence maintains that her use of a private server was permitted by State Department IT procedures at the time, and that the information in question was not classified, legal experts and commentators have questioned the ethics and legality of her actions. The investigation into Clinton's use of private email and any potential violation of the Federal Records Act was ongoing at the time of writing, with the FBI and the Obama Administration Justice Department handling the case.

Obstruction

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official and personal business while Secretary of State has raised questions about whether she broke federal laws. While the Federal Records Act allowed for some use of a personal email account for official business, it required that such emails be forwarded to the State Department's official records system for documentation and preservation. However, Clinton's failure to do so may have violated the Federal Records Act and could potentially be considered "anticipatory obstruction of justice."

Clinton's use of a private server also raised concerns about the handling of classified information. While serving as Secretary of State, she sent and received classified information via email on a private, non-governmental server. This prompted an investigation by the FBI's Counterintelligence Division into whether she unlawfully mishandled classified information. Although Clinton claimed she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time, the investigation revealed that at least 671 emails contained classified information.

The FBI's investigation concluded that Clinton and her staff had been "extremely careless" in handling "highly classified information." However, they found no evidence of "intentional misconduct" or "efforts to obstruct justice." As a result, no criminal charges were brought against Clinton or her aides related to the mishandling of classified information.

In addition to the concerns about classified information, there were questions about Clinton's deletion of emails and destruction of electronic devices. After being subpoenaed to preserve the devices and their contents, Clinton caused 33,000 emails to be deleted and several portable devices to be destroyed. While the FBI found no proof that the deletions were intentional or done to conceal information, the action raised further concerns about obstruction of justice.

In summary, while there were no criminal charges brought against Clinton specifically for obstruction, her actions related to her use of a private email server, handling of classified information, and deletion of emails sparked intense scrutiny and investigations. The full extent of any obstruction may never be known, but it is clear that her actions had significant political ramifications and impacted her public image.

Frequently asked questions