Could Hillary Clinton face the same fate as David Petraeus?

It's a question that has dogged her campaign for over a
year - but opinions are divided over whether the
allegations made against her constitute a crime or are just
the latest partisan sideshow.
Perhaps the best way to look at the implications of her
case is by considering the context of another high-profile
legal drama involving classified documents that was
recently resolved - that of former CIA director David
Petraeus.
Petraeus pled guilty last year to a misdemeanour offence,
mishandling classified information, after being accused of
handing notebooks with classified information to his
biographer-turned mistress, Paula Broadwell.
He was fined and placed on probation - a resolution that
some have called a slap on the wrist.
In other cases people who have revealed classified
information were sent to prison. In 2009 Stephen Kim, a
former government contractor, was sentenced to 13
months for giving classified material to a reporter.
But Petraeus is a high-profile figure. He has been credited
with implementing the US military "surge" in Iraq that
helped bring stability to the nation - at least temporarily.
When President Barack Obama tapped him to head the CIA
in 2011, his name was kicked around by some Republicans
as a possible presidential candidate in 2012.
His celebrated background has led critics to suggest that
there is a double-standard in cases involving the
mishandling of classified information - one making it less
likely that Mrs Clinton will face repercussions for her
actions.
Mrs Clinton used a private server at her house while she
was secretary of state, and some of her emails appeared
to have contained classified information, though it's
unclear whether that information was classified at the time
it was sent. Revealing classified information is a crime.
Yet the offense is treated in different ways, depending upon
the circumstances. They're also tough cases to
prosecute.
Government lawyers have to prove an individual knew what
he was doing when he revealed classified information, for
example, or that she was unusually sloppy when handling
the material.
After initially denying any culpability, Mrs Clinton has
acknowledged that using a private server at her house
was a mistake.
"I should have used two email addresses, one for personal
matters and one for my work at the State Department,"
she said on Facebook in September. "I'm sorry about it,
and I take full responsibility."
One of her former aides, Bryan Pagliano, set up the private
server at her house. He has reportedly agreed to co-
operate with authorities in the investigation. According to
the Washington Post, he's been granted immunity.
Officials refused to talk to me on the record about the
matter. "I'll leave it to the leakers," Marc Raimondi, the
justice department's national security spokesman says.
FBI agents may decide to question Mrs Clinton and more
of her aides, both current and former, in the coming
months.
The danger for Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign, even if
she avoids criminal charges, is that it could play into the
perception by some that the former secretary of state
can't be trusted.
For conservatives hoping to defeat her in the general
election and break the Democrats' eight-year hold on the
Oval Office, that's good news. It also make any discussion
of the legal case fraught with political significance.
Every twist and turn in the case, such as revelations this
week that one individual had agreed to co-operate with a
federal investigation, is scrutinised.
Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador who's now executive
director of the McCain Institute, says her actions are
potentially worse than anything Petraeus did.
Though Petraeus willingly revealed classified information
to his mistress, Mrs Clinton apparently sent email with
classified information through a server without proper
safeguards. As Volker sees things, the classified material
became vulnerable to hackers.
"Everybody and their uncle can potentially see that
information," he says. "That means Iranians, Chinese,
whoever."
Volker believes she should be punished for her actions and
that investigators are doing the right thing in their efforts
to find out more about the case.
But he's sceptical about the outcome.
He believes that during an election year, with a
Democratic administration in power, she's unlikely to be
held accountable for what she did.
FBI agents will pursue it as a criminal matter, he says, but
he believes that justice department officials will "take into
account the political context" (and that Mrs Clinton is a
Democratic candidate for the presidency.)
His suspicions about political bias in the White House
reinforce a universal truth - campaign season is a time of
passion, paranoia and fiery rhetoric.
Few in Washington think that formal charges will be
brought against her, however. And if they were, it's hard to
see how she'd be sent to prison for committing the same
kind of crime for which Petraeus received probation.
If she is charged and avoids any serious penalty, then FBI
agents, federal investigators - and plenty of her political
adversaries - would have reason to be angry.
"But as far as I can see no crimes have been committed,"
says Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on
Government Secrecy for the Federation of American
Scientists. "So I don't see a place for that sort of
frustration."
Like Volker, he sees the issue as political.
"We've been bombarded with accusations before any
indictment has been filed," Aftergood says. "And for that
reason it seems like a manufactured controversy."
And however you see the politics surrounding the case of
Clinton's email, the controversy bound to continue - at
least until the election.