For those following the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton the following article will be interesting. "Why Hillary Clinton will be indicted," by Chetan Hebbale, provides the best summary of the possible charges and evidence that I've found so far. Published in the Chicago Journal of Politics it contains several dozen links per page to document a wide variety of sources.

http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/opinion-why-hillary-clinton-will-be-in...

Now that it looks like Secretary Clinton is likely to be the Democratic nominee, we all need to become more familiar with the facts of the case. Despite how consequential this could be, I haven't written much on this topic out of concern for "spreading right-wing memes." There is no doubt many groups and authors have engaged in a 40 year campaign to vilify Hillary Clinton with totally false allegations and I would include the recent congressional group among these. After her 9 hour plus interrogation I was tremendously impressed with Secretary Clinton's performance and relieved to see that hearing was just another vacuous witch hunt.

Unfortunately, just as previous major investigations into bogus political charges have turned up evidence of other crimes, the bogus investigation in the "Benghazi incident" has produced evidence in Clinton's emails that appear to contain compelling evidence of as many as 8 possible violations of law this author believes could be prosecuted. Even is the DOJ should decide not to prosecute even just the data that is already public is taking an escalating toll as more learn and react to it.

If this evidence turns out to be valid it will be extremely damaging to Clinton. You really have to read this whole brief which apparently is a shortened summary of the authors longer article. Here are a few snippets.

There are several laws surrounding the mishandling of classified information which are spelled out under Title 18 US Criminal Codes and Procedures. The two statutes federal investigators are most interested in are Title 18 U.S. Code § 1924 and Title 18 U.S. Code § 793. A violation of Section 1924 is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to a year in prison, while a violation of Section 793, “The Espionage Act”, is a felony punishable by a fine and up to ten years in prison.

Based on the available evidence, here are the reasons Clinton should and will be indicted for violating these statutes of US Title 18 while Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

(1) Hillary Clinton’s e-mails with Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal contain proof that she retained “classified information” on her private server and also communicated information of “the national defense” with someone “not entitled to receive it.”

Other articles tell the story of a Romanian hacker named "Guccifer," the fellow indicted for publishing purloined documents of former - President Bush, Colin Powell, and Sidney Blumenthal. In his trail authorities uncovered 16 emails from Blumenthal to Clinton while Clinton had only turned over 9.

The most incriminating email from Blumenthal to Clinton is a memo where he reveals the name of a CIA intelligence operative in Libya. In a March 2011 memo, Blumenthal wrote “Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at the CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods].” Despite the email not being “marked classified”, information about a current CIA asset which was illegally obtained almost certainly falls under the purview of a 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement Clinton signed which stipulates that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information.” John Rizzo, a former general counsel at the CIA, said of the memo “it’s the most sensitive kind of classified information — the true identity of a human source.” Clinton forwarded this email to one of her aides, debunking her claim that she never sent classified information through her private server.

“This is a serious breach of national security and a clear violation of the law”, said Army Col. Larry Mrozinski, who served almost four years as a ­senior military adviser in the State Department under both Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious…anybody else would have already lost their security clearance and be subjected to an espionage investigation,” Mrozinski added.

If the hard disk of Clinton's email server contained 22 classified documents then transferring it to the Platte River Networks company would be an additional violation of U.S. Criminal Code 18, Section 793 which does not require nefarious intent, but only "gross negligence." Clinton also allegedly forwarded Blumenthal's and other email to her staff, which apparently were not cleared for this level of secrecy.

Given that we know there is at least one email considered “born classified” with the identity of a CIA intelligence operative, along with 22 other classified emails the State Department has withheld, Clinton’s decision to transfer this information to a private IT company with no security clearance is not only a violation of Section 1924 for housing sensitive information at an “unauthorized location,” but could even fall under Section 793 for “gross negligence” in handling information of “the national defense.” More so, once the FBI approached Platte River Networks to retrieve Clinton’s original server, there are reports that employees at the company began to fear a cover-up . The company reportedly received a letter from Clinton Executive Service Corp instructing them to “cut the back up”.

The employees did not do so and the FBI has now recovered deleted emails which they considered to contain work-related information. This debunks her claim, which she made under the penalty of perjury, that she turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department. Depending on the nature of these recovered e-mails, she could be charged with tampering of evidence, lying to federal officials, and an obstruction of justice.

Not being a lawyer I'm not in a position to evaluate the probability of a recommendation of indictments by the FBI to the DOJ, however, these charges seem plausible enough to merit more scrutiny and discussion.

One concern is that so many in the Democratic Party have correctly concluded that the Benghazi hearing were a bogus witch hunt, therefore all of the articles on Clinton's emails are invalid attempts to destroy her reputation for political purposes.

The author is not a lawyer but a senior college student in biology and economics. But his sources are extensive and many of high quality.

This author claims that an FBI final report is not expected until May or June by which time most of the Democratic primaries will be finished. If the FBI recommends indictments, or even if the report is "just" seriously damaging the Democratic super-delegates may still have an opportunity to change their public announced support leading to a contested convention that might save the Democratic Party from ruin in the November elections.