WASHINGTON (Jan. 29, 2016) — There are laws on the books for walking an elephant down the road during rush hour traffic from back in the day when elephants were used for the transportation of goods.

Since every human act has been codified into a crime at one time or another, merely finding appropriate criminal code to prosecute former President Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary Clinton, is not the problem. There has been enough information reported thus far to bring charges against her for having mishandled classified information by using private email servers.

So the real question is, “Is Hillary Clinton too big to jail?”

Any criminal prosecution would also be subject to the resources of Mrs. Clinton having a well financed criminal defense team both in terms of actual attorneys to defend the case in court, and the other members of her team used to lobby on her behalf to all of her deep seeded contacts.

The Permission to Prosecute Phase

Lets pretend for just a minute that a junior prosecutor actually gets the green light to launch a prosecution against the former president’s wife. Then what?

The Indictment Process

Any prosecution of Mrs. Clinton would most likely go through the indictment process.

Without regard to the pros and cons of the effectiveness of the indictment process, consider the matter was put forth toward the indictment process if for the sole reason to give the illusion of prosecutorial impartiality by placing the decision to file charges upon the shoulders of the grand jury members empaneled for the indictment.

In this brief analysis of any potential criminal prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, it is a given that at any point along the way any number of motions or pleadings could be filed which can either dismiss the proceedings all together, or stretch it out. And like in the case against Julian Assange, any indictment can be easily manipulated without regard.

The Criminal Prosecution

As with any good political thriller, a prosecution launched against deep seeded politicians, as it would be against a former president’s wife, would be unpredictable at best.

Look how long it took Special Prosecutor Kenneth Star to resolve his investigations into matters surrounding former president Bill Clinton which included the: 1) suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster; 2) Whitewater real estate investment scandals; and the 3) extramarital affair that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky scandal. Star’s investigation merely ended with him filing a report with congress called the Starr Report.

Throughout Starr’s investigation, it was later determined that former president Bill Clinton lied about the affair with Lewinsky, which led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of his law license.

So like her husband’s criminal matters, Mrs. Clinton’s criminal proceedings would most likely be subject to a roller coaster of criminal justice twists and turns. None of which would resemble those types of criminal prosecutions regular citizens’ find themselves subject to on a daily basis for crimes as small as possession of marijuana.

The Conviction and Sentencing Phase

Okay, lets say that the criminal prosecution of Hilliary Clinton results in a conviction, and after all the appeals were filed taking several years to resolve, Mrs. Clinton finally is convicted and sentenced for crimes connected with private server, classified email “emailgate” scandal.

Does one really think she will actually be taken into custody and imprisoned? Well, if the case was against a regular citizen, you betcha. However, lets use former U.S. Army General David Patreaus’s 2012 case as an example of potential sentencing Mrs. Clinton may be subjected to.

The Patreaus case involved an extra marital affair between Patreaus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. In 2012 Broadwell went off the extramarital affair leash and began sending harassing emails to a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses, Jill Kelley. Kelly reported the emails to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In the course of the FBI’s investigation in the later part of 2012, they discovered a connection between Broadwell and Patreaus who both had access to an email account investigated in the case.

When the FBI took a closer look into the emails, it discovered that: 1) Patreaus in fact was having an affair with Broadwell, and incidentally, that 2) Patreaus had engaged in the felonious act of providing classified information to Broadwell as well. Purportedly for purposes of writing the biography of Patreaus.

At the end of the day, the criminal prosecution was circumvented by way of the plea bargaining procedure.

In March 2015, Petraeus eventually plead guilty in federal court to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. So more than three years after the affair between Pateaus and Broadwell took a turn, the results of the investigation and criminal prosecution led to a mere two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000.

On top of that, Patreaus was permitted to receive a military retirement package as a general. Despite public outcry to have him demoted in light of the disgrace of the mishandling classified information and extra-marital affair. Soldiers are subject to United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action if they are married, and have an affair. Patreaus, a top military leader, did not suffer any military prosecution for the extra-marital affair because he had retired before the affair became public.

It is a logical conclusion to theorize that the type of “slap on the wrist” outcome seen in the Patreaus case would also been seen in a potential criminal case against Mrs. Clinton for the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.”

Post Conviction – Commutation and Pardon

More serious criminal cases have fallen under the commutation and pardon blessings of past presidents. Take for instance the famous 1974 kidnapping case of Patricia “Patty” Hearst, the granddaughter of American publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst.

In 1974 Patty Hearst was kidnapped by members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). Hearst would eventually be found 19-months later but not after being implicated in a bank robbery which she claimed she was forced to participate in while being held captive by the SLA.

In 1976, Patty Hearst was convicted of bank robbery and the use of a firearm in a felony. She was sentenced to seven years.

In 1979, former president Jimmy Carter eventually commuted Hearst’s sentence only after 22-months.

On Jan 20, 2001, Patty Hearst eventually receive a pardon from president Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

It is not surprising that a wealthy well connected individual like Patty Hearst’s would be able to receive both a commutation and a pardon from two former presidents. It is also clear that Hearst’s crimes were far more serious than Mrs. Clinton’s potential crimes associated with the email scandals she currently is under investigation for.

So its not a far fetched idea that Mrs. Clinton would be a front runner to receive both a commutation and a pardon for any convictions she would get. Especially since she is the wife of a former president, Bill Clinton.

Final Verdict

In the rare case actual criminal charges were waged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her using private email servers for classified emails when acting in her official capacity as a government official, she definitely would not be prosecuted under the same criminal justice stratosphere most Americans are prosecuted under in this country.

Her solid government connections, to include being the wife of a former president, would most likely provide her a wealth of opportunities not available to the average American charged with a crime. The very same citizens she has been asking to vote for her during her 2016 run for president of the United States.

At the end of the day, it can easily be projected that any well funded criminal defense team for Mrs. Clinton would simply lay out the potential prosecution scenario briefly outlined above with the hopes of entering into a plea deal.

Add a little grease to the rails by including ‘invisible kickback icing’ on the prosecutor’s future career cake, and it would be highly unlikely any formal proceedings will ever be seen against Mrs. Clinton for the email fiasco.

Even if after a successful prosecution was completed, if we apply the Patreaus precedent, Mrs. Clinton’s final punishment would be reduced to a mere misdemeanor and fine.

(c) 2016 PublicSkeleton.com