Translate

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Erwin Chemerinsky Says Clinton Broke No Law

Image result for john dillinger
"Hell, I didn't know it was against the law to rob a bank."



I have long maintained that UC Irvine law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who writes a weekly column for the Orange County Register and is regarded by some as one of the nation's foremost constitutional scholars, fashions his legal views according to what is the liberal side of the argument. His column in today's OC Register removes all doubt as he opines that Hillary Clinton broke no law with her email server while secretary of state.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton-722390-comey-law.html

Chemerinsky writes:

"For Clinton to have violated the law, it must be proven that she knew that what she was doing was illegal. As Comey explained, prior prosecutions have been for “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information,” and there is no evidence of this for Clinton."

First, to argue that Clinton had no knowledge that she was acting unlawfully is laughable on its face. She was the secretary of state and a lawyer to boot! She was fully briefed on classification procedures prior to being sworn in. She actually disciplined underlings who violated the same rules. On one occasion, it was revealed that she directed her aides to remove classification markings from a message in order to facilitate its transmission to her. That latter example alone goes to show her intent-as if intent were necessary in the case of 18 USC 973 section f, which only requires "gross negligence". James Comey told Congress in his testimony that Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified material. Maybe Chemerinsky would like to explain the difference between the two in legal terms. Had Chemerinsky ever been a prosecutor, he would have known that intent is usually proved in court by circumstantial evidence, you know, things like deleting (thousands) of emails.

And Clinton never lied? Trey Gowdy (R-TN) brought out in his questioning of Comey that Clinton lied in a number of statements, both to the public and to the committee in her own testimony. (That's called perjury, Mr Chemerinsky.) She told Congress that she never sent or received classified information. Comey stated that the investigation revealed that she did.

Any junior Foreign Service officer knows how to handle classified documents. Yet you have a woman who was secretary of state for four years sending and receiving classified documents, some classified even higher than top secret, on her own private server housed in the basement of her home!

Chemerinksy also writes:

 "Comey emphasized that there has not been a single instance in which any person ever has been prosecuted for behavior like Clinton’s."

I would suggest that both Comey and Chemerinsky Google the name, Bryan Nishimura. He was prosecuted for  unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials-with no malicious intent in 2015. The investigating agency? The FBI. Here is a link to their own website reporting the case.

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

The decision not to charge Clinton was a political decision. It was left to Comey to make the announcement in order to take the heat off the President and the attorney general. For Chemerinsky to argue that it was based purely on a reading of the law is to turn logic on its head.


3 comments:

Squid said...

Chemerrinsky is running a far Left school of law. I would not be surprised if some of the instructors are followers of Saul Alinsky philosophy and tactics. If he embraces the National Lawyers Guild student group, attached to his law school, he embraces Marxist tactics.
Chemerinsky's article is an example of secreting a false, misleading narrative about Comey's wrong decision about Clinton's email scandal. A decision, as you say, was political and not based upon the rule of law.

Squid

Gary Fouse said...

Chemo, in spite of his big reputation, is an embarrassment to UCI. Of couyrse, he is hardly alone.

Miggie said...

There were two statues discussed in Mr Comey's statement - one a felony and the other a misdemeanor. (Intentional violation of law regarding handling of sensitive information and the knowing removal of classified documents to an unauthorized location).

It is a felony for anyone possessing national defense material to permit it to through gross negligence (rather than purposeful conduct) to permit it to be removed from its proper place. Yet he based his recommendation on the basis of that there was no clear evidence of intent to violate the law. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of sensitive and highly classified information.

Democrats: What is the difference between gross negligence (the law) and extremely careless?

Even the Felony charge does not require evidence of intent.

The second, misdemeanor charge, is the knowing removal of classified information to an eunauthorized location. Comey mentioned 3 considerations to make on this:
Essentially on intent
Context of a persons action
How similar situations have been handled in the past.

Criminal intent is not a requirement of EITHER statue.

Comey talked about their conclusions not the facts they found.