You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.