Keith Mack
Hillary Clinton has been accused of breaking several laws, including the mishandling of official documents and the improper sharing of classified information. Clinton installed a private server in her home to transact government business, using a number of portable electronic devices for the same purpose. After being subpoenaed to preserve the devices and their contents, she caused 33,000 emails to be deleted and all of the portable devices to be destroyed. While Clinton's potential legal liability for her actions may be minimal, the political ramifications could be significant.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Using a private server in her home to transact government business | Yes |
| Using portable electronic devices to transact government business | Yes |
| Deleting 33,000 emails | Yes |
| Destroying portable devices | Yes |
| Mishandling official documents | Yes |
| Improperly sharing classified information | Yes |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Mishandling of official documents
Hillary Clinton used a private server and a number of portable electronic devices to transact government business. She then caused 33,000 emails to be destroyed and all of the portable devices to be destroyed. This was in violation of the law.
Clinton's actions may have minimal legal liability, but they have had significant political ramifications. The FBI released a report on 9/2/2016 detailing her violations in connection with the mishandling of official documents.
The specific laws that Clinton may have broken are not entirely clear, but they are no less serious. Former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, theorised that Clinton could face the same criminal charge as CIA Director General David Petraeus, who improperly shared classified information with his biographer.
It is important to note that the information does not necessarily have to be marked as classified to violate the statute. This means that even if Clinton did not intentionally break the law, she may still have committed a serious offence.
Nevada Labor Laws: Understanding Your Break Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Improper sharing of classified information
Hillary Clinton was accused of improperly sharing classified information with her biographer. This is a serious offence, and one that could have resulted in criminal charges.
Clinton was alleged to have installed and used a private server in her home to transact government business, as well as using a number of portable electronic devices for the same purpose. This meant that she had access to sensitive information that should have been kept secure. After being subpoenaed to preserve the devices and their contents, Clinton caused 33,000 emails to be deleted and all of the portable devices to be destroyed. This action potentially compromised the security of the information and may have broken several laws.
The potential legal liability for Clinton's actions may have been minimal, but the political ramifications were significant. The direct intervention of President Obama and/or Attorney General Loretta Lynch prevented Clinton from being prosecuted. However, the FBI did release a report after interviewing Clinton regarding the violations she committed in connection with her mishandling of official documents.
It is important to note that the information doesn't necessarily have to be marked as classified to violate the statute. Even if Clinton did not intend to break the law, her actions could still have had serious consequences.
Trump's Treasonous Request: Breaking Foreign Influence Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Conspiracy
Hillary Clinton has been accused of breaking several laws, including conspiracy, false statements, money laundering, obstruction, perjury, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and tax evasion. The most prominent of these accusations is conspiracy.
Clinton has been accused of installing and using a private server in her home to transact government business, as well as using a number of portable electronic devices for the same purpose. After being subpoenaed to preserve the devices and their contents, she caused 33,000 emails to be deleted and all of the portable devices to be destroyed. This was in direct violation of the law, as the information on the devices did not need to be marked as classified to violate the statute.
Clinton's actions have sparked a great deal of controversy, with many calling for her to be prosecuted. However, the direct intervention of President Obama and/or Attorney General Loretta Lynch prevented that from happening. On 9/2/2016, the FBI released its report after interviewing Clinton with regard to the violations that she committed in connection with her mishandling of official documents.
While Clinton’s potential legal liability for her actions may be minimal, the possible political ramifications for her couldn’t be greater, especially with the Iowa Caucuses less than three months away at the time.
Trump's Weather Map Scandal: Law Broken?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![emails i can't send fwd: [LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61kvxtyItBL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
False statements
Hillary Clinton was accused of breaking the law by using a private server and portable electronic devices to transact government business. She was also accused of causing 33,000 emails to be obliterated and all of the portable devices to be destroyed.
Clinton was accused of making false statements, which is a federal statute. However, the specific nature of these false statements is unclear. It is possible that the accusations relate to her handling of classified information, as Clinton was accused of improperly sharing classified information with her biographer.
The political ramifications of these accusations were significant, especially given the proximity to the Iowa Caucuses. However, it is worth noting that the potential legal liability for Clinton's actions may have been minimal.
Understanding New York's Mandatory Break Laws
You may want to see also
Money laundering
Hillary Clinton was accused of breaking several laws in connection with her mishandling of official documents.
In 2016, Donald Trump accused Clinton of money laundering, alleging that she funnelled government money to Laureate Education, a for-profit chain of universities that employed her husband, Bill Clinton, as honorary chancellor. Trump claimed that the State Department awarded $55.2 million in grants to Laureate, however, there is no evidence that Laureate received any money from the federal government while Clinton was at the State Department. The State Department did provide $55.2 million in grants to Laureate from 2010-2012, but this was not during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
Trump's allegation was based on the fact that Bill Clinton was paid $16.5 million by Laureate between 2010 and 2014, and that Clinton added Laureate to the State Department Global Partnership. However, there is no indication that State Department money flowed directly to Laureate. The source of Trump's claim conflates Laureate with a separate charitable organisation that received funds from a separate government agency.
In 2020, the Hillary Clinton campaign was accused of an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy during the 2016 presidential election, in violation of federal campaign-finance law.
Who Breaks the Most Laws? Gender and Crime
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Hilary Clinton broke several laws by using a private server in her home to transact Government business, as well as using a number of portable electronic devices for the same purpose. She also caused 33,000 emails to be deleted and all of the portable devices to be destroyed.
The FBI released a report on 9/2/2016 after interviewing Hilary Clinton with regard to the violations that she committed in connection with her mishandling of official documents.
The violations were in connection with her mishandling of official documents.
Hilary Clinton could have faced the same criminal charge which CIA Director General David Petraeus pled to after it was revealed that he improperly shared classified information with his biographer.
