I went a couple of rounds on Hillary Clinton’s classified emails with American University law prof Stephen Vladeck in the New York Times’ “Room for Debate” feature. Basically, Steve and I did one post addressing the Times’ question about whether there ought to be a criminal investigation and, potentially, an indictment; then, we each did a second post reacting to the other.
To summarize my position: I argued that there is abundant evidence to support a full-blown criminal investigation (including the convening of a grand jury). As for Steve’s counterpoints — viz., that classification can be a dynamic process (i.e., what is publicly-known information when emailed can sometimes become classified afterwards), and that too much information is classified by the government — I responded (a) that these claims might explain away the mishandling of a few isolated classified documents but not the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of emails at issue here; and (b) that, in any event, even if one thinks Mrs. Clinton may ultimately have a defense, that is not a reason to refrain from conducting a real investigation.
The entire exchange can be read here.