Main Page Contact Register Log In

So basically there are three tests that all have to be passed:

1) The Attorney General determines that a criminal investigation is warranted.
2) There a conflict of interest.
3) It's in the public interest to appoint outside counsel.

As far as 1) goes, I'm not sure whether the current Attorney General thinks that a criminal investigation is warranted. As I said above, the fact that a crime is committed doesn't mean that the Attorney General has to decide that a criminal investigation is warranted.
But he might very well decide that when the FBI recommends it.

As far as 2) goes, I'm not sure of the prior history. Is the persecution of secretaries of that that are out of office for a few years and that haven't hold the office of attorney general generally considered a conflict of interest?
You can also argue that the fact that she's a presidential candidate means that there a conflict of interest as members of the DoJ care profesionally about who's the new president.
In both cases those questions seem like there should be prior art.

As far as 3) goes, that's again debateable. Generally running criminal investigation on politicians in front of elections is a hallmark of failed states. I'm not sure that the weight of the crime of handling top secret information in an illegal fashion outways that. For top ministers and their stuff handling secret information in an illegal fashion is commenplace and you could basically run such a suit against any minister that you don't like because his department leaked information to whistleblowers.