You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
20

[–] sonickid101 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Why is intention a necessary component for conviction upon committing these crimes? If I accidentally run over an old lady in my car my intent wouldn't be to kill her but the manslaughter charge I would receive wouldn't hinge on whether I wanted to cold bloodily run over an old lady with intent. Just the fact of the matter that the situation happened is all that would matter. Likewise I don't care if Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, and Anthony Weiner intended to break the law the fact of the matter is they did. Whether or not there was intent here should be irrelevant.

1
10

[–] equineluvr 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Intent comes into play with certain crimes like fraud.

There is NO INTENT ELEMENT IN THE STATUTE. Gowdy READ IT TO COMEY last time, LOL.

0
8

[–] jabba 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Where there is no mens rea mentioned in a federal statute, a standard of "recklessness" is usually read in. Clinton and Abedin were likely reckless, since that only requires that they acted while consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk. It is farfetched to believe that they didn't understand there was a risk. Comey is obfuscating the issue by excusing their behavior through a mistake of law defense, which is inappropriate. Comey is seemingly acting as investigator, prosecutor, and defense attorney. A jury would almost certainly find that Clinton and Abedin acted recklessly, and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Their actions were too egregious; any reasonable person would have inferred the illegality of sharing top secret data. Because they were in the field, and presumably experts, they should be held to have known that sharing data was illegal. A plethora of expert witnesses could testify about why that would be the case.

0
3

[–] LostandFound 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This, all of this. They are just happy watching us chase shadows. The law is not universal when the DOJ has to make a decision on what cases to pursue, please stop looking behind the curtin and focus on the dog and pony show.

0
8

[–] cyks 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Remember: growing cannabis is a crime that constitutes no malicious act against social welfare, and therefore no basis to determine intent, yet you can earn a lifetime sentence in federal prison if caught.

1
3

[–] bopper [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Free the weed. It's a plant.

And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine. Bible verse

0
2

[–] 4TruthUnited 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

While marijuana is illegal , you can buy alcohol at almost every store . Prohibition was a law until the government figured out how to make money and tax it - then it was fine to consume . Same with medical marijuana . As long as TPTB get a cut - it`s fine and dandy

0
1

[–] nitro169 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In america intent is directly correlated to how much money you have

0
0

[–] GuannaRue 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You said it so well; take this upvoat my G!

0
0

[–] jimsung 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I served a couple of decades+ in the military. I had a TS clearance the entire time. No intent is required. If I had done what she did, I would have had my clearance revoked, been court marshaled, dishonorably discharged and sent to Leavenworth. I've seen many military personnel and civilians get prosecuted over the years. The act of improperly dealing with classified alone is enough to prosecute. BTW, her intent was clear. She was using a pay to play scheme whereby she used her position as Secretary of State to do favors for foreigners and foreign nations in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation or direct payoffs by paying for speeches and other means. (See Uranium One deal in the in NY Times, Apr 2015.) She needed her email to be outside of the government for this purpose.