Nah. I think she was careless on purpose. Imagine if she transferred it using encryption and Russia got ahold of it, and then claimed she gave it to them. I think she wanted people to know so that she could claim that she was doing the right thing.
That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing", they'll put her in the slammer all the same. Not even Hillary Clinton would get off scot free after something like this.
> That would be unbelievably stupid. It's not like in DOJ anyone cares if she "did the right thing"
A jury (with nullification power), in principal, might (as might the electorate who choose Presidents who have pardon and clemency power); if you aren't going to flee to avoid capture and aren't confident of your ability to evade the counterintelligence services in the long term, compromising your ability in the short term to improve the optics of the event may not be completely irrational, even if it is far from guaranteed to pay off.
You sound like someone who's never been on a jury. Jury gets very exact instructions from the judge before it makes a decision. In these instructions judge interprets the law in a way that the jury will understand. She doesn't tell them how to vote, but in a clear cut case like this one someone who has been selected for impartiality will almost certainly make an accusatory decision. Jury is not a get out of jail free card.
> You sound like someone who's never been on a jury
I've not only been on juries, but studied them. Nullification is a thing. It's quite rare and unlikely in the specific circumstance at issue, but that's already factored into the discussion in the grandparent post.
