You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] 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?

[–] ColdSteam [S] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Not sure if snarky or coy