Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Hillary Clearly Breaks The Law But Didn't Intend To?

With the FBI wiping its hands clean of Hillary's felonies, one major irregularity struck me about Director Comey's statement. Take a look:
Although we did not find clear evidence that secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. (Emphasis added.)
What is the problem with this statement? (The reader may pause the page here to think on this problem before moving ahead to the answer.)

The problem is that Comey declined to recommend an indictment based on Hillary's intent to violate the law.

This is a dangerous precedent to set before the criminal justice system. Basically, Hillary was let off the hook because, as Comey put it, she didn't intend to break the law.

The repercussions of that type of thinking stagger the imagination. The "lack" of intent to commit a crime, even when the actions are criminal, allow Comey to excuse Hillary from the demands of justice.

Taking that idea to its (il)logical conclusion destroys the foundation of the legal system. It goes way beyond the accidental breaking of the law (such as accidentally shooting someone without intending to).

Yet, if I take out a gun, load it, haul it out in a crowded area, pull the trigger, then kill someone, I can and should be charged with a felony whether or not I intended to kill someone or not.

Hillary lives by a different standard than us mere mortals. She can blatantly ignore the law, then be cleared because of her intent.

Justice is no longer blind. It winks an eye at the corrupt and the elite.