promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

If the FBI had sent the evidence they had collected on the Hillary email scandal to a grand jury, how do you think the grand jury would have?

ruled?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Edith
    Lv 7
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Obama has corrupted the judicial system. Loretta Lynch would have been sure that the grand jury would not charge hillary. But that is a future step. Right now the corruption is in the FBI in doing an incomplete investigation and not filing charges. Note that the manager in the FBI who is conducting the email investigation has taken a bribe of $750,000. It was done by a friend of hillary, Terry MacCaulif, governor of Virginia, recruiting the FBI manager's wife to run for local political office. Then the democrats made a $750,000 donation to her campaign (all total she received about $2,000,000--other friends of hillary). She lost the race, but kept the money, tax free and legal.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Tmess2
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    The FBI does not send evidence to a grand jury. If the FBI believes that they have evidence of a crime, they send their information to a U.S. attorney (or for state offenses to local prosecutors). (There is a separate U.S. Attorney for each of the 93 judicial districts.) The U.S. attorney decides if there is enough evidence to present to a grand jury. Besides presenting the evidence to the grand jury, the U.S. attorney also informs the grand jury about what must be proved for any particular offense. In this case, as in many cases, it would depend upon what the U.S. attorney told the grand jury about the elements of the offense, specifically about the required intent.

    By one interpretation of the statute (a specific intent to disclose classified information), assuming an unbiased grand jury (good luck finding a grand jury without some bias about the Clintons), there would be no basis for an indictment. If the U.S. attorney gave a rather loose reading of the statute (i.e. no real intent to disclose classified information, just being sloppy about potential for someone else getting access to it), it would have been a close call on whether there was probable cause. For the past three or four years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed convictions for several different offenses because U.S. Attorney's have been reading statutes too loosely.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • justa
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    There wasn't any evidence, so they couldn't send it to a grand jury. It's not up to a grand jury to make a case, they're supposed to be given the case that the FBI collected and see if its worth handing down an indictment over.

    The FBI said they found no criminality. So there was no case to present.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • R T
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    That's one of the major problems. Just where would you find enough unbiased people to assemble a grand jury?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Smitty
    Lv 5
    3 years ago

    They would have found her innocent. Giving the best answer you know at any given tim is called telling the truth.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    They would have decided to press charges the first time.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.