FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago to Government
"The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence."
"It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information."
"It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
What to do? Well if your out for revenge there is Trump but we don't really know what's he's going to do except he's a left wing liberal with no plan and no clue.
hmmm
I guess it's down to Johnson until the Bimbo Btigades are released, Trump as the unknown evil vs the known evil, and None Of The Above. That's when you cash in leave a rigged game behind and walk away. I'm registered probably for the last time but I'm also not voting in the Presdiential Election as I object to my vote being given to one of the others without my permission. The polite way of saying stolen and tampered with before delivering it elsewhere. .
You appear to expect ethical action from the head of an agency that has skated without punishment from burning innocent people to death and murdering an innocent mother who was nursing her baby, even getting promotion for such acts.
To expect ethical behavior from the FBI director or any other statist looter is just not reasonable.
These statists are past the point of hiding their actions. They believe they can get away with anything so they will keep doing it with impunity until we stand up and stop them.
Part of the point is to expose that it's not just the Dems that are corrupt statists and it's not just the GOP. None of them are representing the people; none of them deserve a vote.
Just because a corrupt Democrat administration controlled FBI ignores the law and recommends no prosecution of a well known criminal who is running for president does not mean that issue is closed. I think that this even more obvious corruption can cause a disruption to Hillary's planned coronation if it gets enough attention in a short enough time. Maybe that is worth the effort.
You may just see it as a distraction from the issues, but unethical and even criminal behavior is unacceptable in a president. These criminals keep pushing the envelope. Eventually enough people will be convinced that the Dems and GOP have betrayed their trust and they are criminals that can't be reformed.
Then there is the Fourth Branch - the Bureaucracy which has it's own enforcement, law making, and law enforcing, it's own courts and it's own police and embodies what one Hillsdale Professor described in a lecture. When you combine all three powers together without checks and balances and oversight you have the secular definition of GOD.
Don't forget Jesus Corney in your prayers
But the reckless "non-intentional" violations would be enough by themselves to prosecute her. Comey didn't say her lack of intent was the justification for not recommending prosecution -- after laying out more than enough evidence against her he said that the justification for not prosecuting is that no "reasonable prosecutor" would, which begs the question.
The return of States Rights is long overdue.
Following the law and having a trial would take time and have a negative effect on the campaign of the Democratic Party candidate. In that event the only way out for the Clinton looter is having the judge publicly either (1) find the perp not guilty with legal slight of hand, or (2) if there is a jury, instruct them to ignore the facts of the case and the law and find the perp not guilty (and threaten them with contempt if they do not.) The FBI director suggests that it would be less embarrasing and more practical to ignore the rule of law and just let the guilty bitch walk.
However, intent is irrelevent in this crime.
If Hillary had also had intent, she would be guilty of T R E A S O N instead of gross negligence. She is likely guilty of gross negligence and should be tried and, when found guilty, she should be imprisoned therfore.
"a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case."