MSNBC Pundit: Higher Bar for Hillary Accountability

http://lawnewz.com/video/msnbc-guest-argues-for-higher-bar-to-prosecute-clinton-because-shes-running-for-president/

During a panel discussion Monday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe about a pair of new reports in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post concerning the ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton private e-mail server, National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued that there should be a higher bar to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because she is running for president.

Wait, what?

After the initial discussion focused more on the issue of Clinton’s judgment and trustworthiness as well as the likelihood that Clinton set up the server in an effort to evade federal record keeping laws and FOIA requests, program host Joe Scarborough sought to refocus the discussion on the classified information aspect of the investigation.

“Intel officials have been saying to me, and have been angry for some time, not so much about FOIA. They’ve been talking about the reckless disregard for classified information and that there are so many classified documents that both came and went. When they talked about ‘it wasn’t marked on there’ it is just a distinction without a difference,” Scarborough said.

Fournier responded that those issues are more harmful to Clinton in a political sense because they show she has not been truthful about the e-mail issue from the beginning and voters already understand that Clinton’s “marked classified” defense is purely political spin.

Fournier then pivots to address the legal implications:

“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 to get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes.”

This remark seemed to take Scarborough by surprise and he replied, “Actually, the bar is ‘reckless [disregard]’ of classified information….”

Wait, what?

I will type this slowly, but all through the United States, a lawyer, a judge, a legislator who is traveling to their designated job cannot be arrested or detained. So if one of those lawyers who are in all the ads is traveling to court and is twenty miles over the limit......state law forbids the arrest of the person. The officer will simply take his license, and the person will come in after they have completed their work. The same for a legislator who is stopped.....cannot be arrested in transit to a legislative session. Now why have all over the country these state laws have popped up?

It is because our founding founders understood the use of political power to criminalize opponents and therein neutralize the politics of opposition. So when one argues that bringing a higher standard during a campaign to bring charges, or to suspend until the campaign is over is clearly part of the early American caution where political power criminalizes opponents. All that being said, if the FBI finds that Hillary Clinton knowingly was sending classified material to Dubai........she should be indicted and tried......immediately, but then again........that will not happen because she was authorized to receive the material and she did not knowingly and with the intent to transfer to a third party who did not have the authority.....this is much ado about nothing.....kinda just like the multiple Benghazi committees and the IRS committee......but the concept the person on Morning Joe is statutory in almost every state in America.

What a surprise... you rationalizing the privilege of the leftist ruling elite... lol. He/you would never do that for a pub.

The difference is I would do it for NO ONE. Equality doesn't make allowances for the rich and powerful comrade.

See 2So run, see 2SO pretend to be an expert on national law!!! BTW, HRC is a CANDIDATE (read civilian), not an elected member of the Congress......or anything else.

Now see the rest of the story:

“The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 6, CLAUSE 1

The Privilege from Arrest Clause provides a Member of Congress a privilege from civil arrest only, but not from other civil processes. Even the privilege from civil arrest would be valid only while Congress is in session.
Civil arrest is the physical detainment of a person, by lawful authority, to answer a civil demand against him. At the time the Constitution was adopted, civil arrests were common. Long v. Ansell (1934). The Framers likely feared this tool could be misused to interfere with the legislative process. Civil arrest is rarely, if ever, practiced, so this clause is virtually obsolete and has little application today.

The Supreme Court interpreted the language "in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace" to encompass all crimes. Williamson v. United States (1908). Tracing the origins of the clause to parliamentary privilege, the Court found this identical language was used to qualify Parliament's privilege from arrest so that the members of Parliament were not immune from criminal prosecution. The Court concluded that the Framers' use of the identical phrase, without any explanation, indicated that Congress's privilege was to have the same limitation regarding criminal actions as did the parliamentary privilege from which the language was borrowed. The clause, therefore, does not provide Congress with any immunity from criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court, applying the Framers' intent, later declared that the clause also did not provide any privilege from civil process. Long v. Ansell. Hence, civil litigants can compel Members of Congress to appear in a court of proper jurisdiction to defend against civil actions. Furthermore, the Court has so narrowly interpreted the clause that Members of Congress may even be compelled by subpoena to testify in criminal and civil actions while Congress is in session.