FBI getting ready to interview the queen herself

If you want to read one paragraph that perfectly encapsulates the way the dinosaur media covers matters of politics and law, you can't do much better (or worse?) than the second paragraph in this excerpt from yesterday's Los Angeles Times, concerning the current state of the FBI's Hillary e-mail investigation, which will soon include interviews with Hillary herself. To sum up the Times' take on this, it was against the law to do what she did, but she probably won't be charged with anything, because . . . well, for no reason really, except the one we all figure is at work - because she's Hillary. This is almost too twisted to get through:

Many legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State, though that decision has raised questions among some about her judgment. They noted that using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business. The bigger question is whether she or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside of the department’s secure classified system. But even if prosecutors determine that she did, chances she will be found criminally liable are low. U.S. law makes it a crime for someone to knowingly or willfully retain classified information, handle it in a grossly negligent manner or to pass it to someone not entitled to see it. Clinton has denied using the email account to send or receive materials marked classified. Though some emails have since been deemed to be too sensitive to release publicly, Clinton's campaign has attributed that to overzealous intelligence officials and "over-classification run amok." Legally it doesn’t matter if the emails were marked as classified or not, since government officials are obligated to recognize sensitive material and guard against its release. But legal experts noted that such labels would be helpful to prosecutors seeking to prove she knew the information was classified, a key element of the law.

---

So let me see if I have this straight: It's a crime to knowingly or willfully retain classified information, handle it in a grossly negligent manner or pass it to someone else - oh, say, maybe . . . Sid Blumenthal - not entitled to see it. These are all crimes. Which of them did Hillary do? All of them. Who knows she committed these crimes? Everyone who's paying attention. And yet, "chances she will be found criminally liable are low." And why exactly is that? If it doesn't matter legally whether the e-mails were marked or not - thus obliterating Hillary's major talking point in her own defense - then why would the lack of markings (assuming there were no markings, a matter on which we have only Hillary's word) make her any less likely to be prosecuted? What the Times seems to know, but doesn't really want to say, is that the Obama Justice Department will hang on any excuse it can find not to prosecute Hillary. Even if the rationale is legally flimsy, they'll grab whatever they can. So what that mind-bending second paragraph above really means is: Damn right she broke the law, but the people in charge of enforcing the law don't want to do it, and there's probably a way out of it for them, so she'll skate. Then again, the Times doesn't really know just how compelling the FBI's evidence is. If James Comey's people have as strong a case as we keep hearing he thinks they do, it might not be as easy as the Times assumes it will be for the political class to protect one of its own here. By the way, just to be clear, the prosecution wouldn't be for using a private e-mail server, or even for using it exclusively. Those things were against policy (Hillary's protests to the contrary notwithstanding), but not against the law, What she would be prosecuted for is the criminal mishandling of classified information. We've already told you it's beyond a reasonable doubt that she did, in fact, do this. The only question that remains is whether it's beyond a political doubt.