It's hard to believe that it took until now before someone finally asked Hillary Clinton what she will do if she's indicted for breaking federal law regarding the handling of classified information. When Clinton became Secretary of State, she insisted on setting up a private e-mail server and using a private e-mail account to send and receive all of her e-mails, both government and non-government related. While she has repeatedly claimed she never sent or received classified information on her private server and e-mail account, documents released by the State Department in response to public records request released under court order have established that thousands contained classified information, including dozens that were considered top secret. Clinton reacted angrily to a question from a panelist in the Univision-sponsored debate that aired on CNN last night on whether she will drop out of the race for president if she's indicted. "Oh, for goodness . . . and it's not going to happen so I'm not going to answer that question," she tersely replied.
UPDATE: Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who is neither Republican nor conservative, reacted strongly on his blog to Clinton's continued misrepresentations on the law concerning her use of a private e-mail server to send classified information and the complete refusal of the media to challenge her misstatements.
. . . It is bizarre that the media does not address the glaring disconnect between what Clinton is saying and what the law actually demands. SF-312 reflects the obvious standard that classified information does not have to be marked. More importantly, as President, Clinton could never allow subordinates to operate under such a ridiculous construction of the rule. It would mean that classified statements that she makes in a SCIF or in the oval office would be free to be released or discussed in unsecure forums because no one stamped her oral statements classified as they were uttered. Yet she has been asked this question dozens of times and has given the same answer with virtually no reporter raising the actual language of the federal law or the practical implications of what she is suggesting about the scope of classification laws.
I have rarely seen a major legal issue in a presidential campaign that is being discussed with so little connection to the actual laws or legal standards. I understand that politics can be a fluid and rather superficial field. However, law is based on actual statutes and standards. The disconnection between the actual law and these questions is disconcerting.