Just wondering......Can Hillary be indicted for destruction of evidence for destroying emails and server(s)?

I'll freely admit to not being familiar with US law, but surely if this was possible it would have happened already? Or is it customary to allow for potential presidential candidates to run with legal questions surrounding them?

and since you are being so forthcoming, I will grace you with a "real" answer and not simply a smartass reply, as tempted as I am. lol

Hillary is hardly the only candidate to be running with legal questions surrounding her, actually it's quite common for this to occur, and in Hillary's case this is far from the only time she has had criminal prosecution threatened against her. A simple Google search will reveal WhiteWater, Travelgate, and several other instances where she not only "might" have, but most likely did step over the line.

In the interest of fairness, this crosses party lines, more than a few Republicans have their own legal problems, Governors Perry and Christie are a couple that come quickly to mind.

It's also quite possible that as a political gambit they could indict her AFTER she wins the nomination and force her to campaign as an indicted person, with the specter of having to step down as POTUS if both elected and convicted.

Also in the interest of fairness, this is hardly unique to American Politics, just look in your own back yard and you will find this commonplace as well. I guess it's just the nature of politics.

It's a foolish man that doesn't know what he doesn't know.

John Edwards?  Both Democratic presidential hopefuls caught with their pants down.

We were talking about running with a potential indictment hanging over your head, not cheating on your wife.

but there are plenty of examples of both from both sides of the aisle, and that was my main point

But his was hardly a dumb question. Given the right political climate, she could quite conceivably be charged with a crime.

Will she be charged? Not fucking likely, but that wasn't the question.

filthy crook bitch

That would require the AG to act.  Highly unlikely.

who would investigate and determine if laws have been broken and if an indictment is appropriate or should be presented to a grand jury. Her relationship with the AG and the president would not impact the decision in the slightest. This assumes that the AG did not do that himself.

recently and are still incomplete. So far too soon to determine if she has committed a crime. Plus if the AG failed to act on probable cause evidence, Congress would probably appoint a special prosecutor. This takes time as he would have to investigate and probably present to a grand jury.

Unless of course, you aren't really that sure of your position.

If you're scared, it's ok, just admit you are not as sure as you once said you were. There is no shame in changing your mind, or more accurately "coming to your senses" lmao

In this corner, twenty active brain cells!

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title28/28-2.0.4.5.1.html