For John, BLUF: If you let it happen, you set a bad precedent. Nothing to see here; just move along.
There is the suggestion out there, e.g., Mr Ron Fournier, that because Ms Clinton is running for President, the bar for prosecution should be higher.
Legally though, there is a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president. …I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar that you have get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes…Like former Texas Governor Rick Perry, maybe.
Politically, there are severe questions about her judgment that voters really have to look into.
Legally…there is a higher bar you have to get over before you prosecute somebody who is running for president.
This is the United States and so we have some degree of transparency, in this case the U.S. Attorney’s Manual . Here are the extracts Law Professor Glenn Reynolds pulled for our enjoyment.
The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction ….If you can't tell where I stand, I will make it plain. No special deal for Ms Clinton. Send a message to politicians across the Fruited Plain. No immunity for politicians. Especially for politicians.
In determining whether to commence or recommend prosecution or take other action against a person, the attorney for the government should not be influenced by: The person’s race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities or beliefs ….
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff