[–] Memorexem 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Long answer short: No.

[–] oddjob 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

All you have to say is it was hyperbole for the death of the democrat party, or the statement was based on a fear of unjust prosecution for being liberal i.e. Trump is going to create concentration camps for leftists.

Also, what exactly does that statement even admit?

[–] ColdSteam [S] 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Also, what exactly does that statement even admit?

Ah, an intellectual question! Delighted to respond in kind, good sir or madame

To the crux: while the principle of "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" generally applies, in many situations a defendant's legal counsel may argue Clinton's ignorance of specific law as lack of intent, her diatribe, and specifically this key phrase, directly indicates her "mens rea" of criminal intentions with her many prior questionable actions.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I think somebody watched "Legally Blonde".

Wouldn't there still need to be a specific crime stated?