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.
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.
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
It's ok bro...God makes a plant and the feds apparently think that is a mistake. This is perhaps the best example of crony capitalism...all because of the paper and textile industries at the time. Also, the hypocrisy regarding not deporting illegals because it will split up families, but the feds have no problem locking people up who have families for weed.
Same thing with Sassafras oil (safrole), which is what MDMA (ecstasy) is derived from. The native Americans made root beer from Sassafras root for Pete's sake.
Thanks. Yeah I remember about the Hemp and paper and textile situation, that was extremely interesting. Prisons are an industry, gotta keep 'em filled.
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.
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.
view the rest of the comments →
sonickid101 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.
MiikoKiiko ago
Believe me! If it was you or I, intent or not, we'd be on our way to prison.
nitro169 ago
In america intent is directly correlated to how much money you have
GuannaRue ago
You said it so well; take this upvoat my G!
cyks 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.
bopper 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
dontmindthemess ago
Good point. Wrong story.
bopper ago
Sorry, I lost it for a moment.
witch_doctor1 ago
It's ok bro...God makes a plant and the feds apparently think that is a mistake. This is perhaps the best example of crony capitalism...all because of the paper and textile industries at the time. Also, the hypocrisy regarding not deporting illegals because it will split up families, but the feds have no problem locking people up who have families for weed.
Same thing with Sassafras oil (safrole), which is what MDMA (ecstasy) is derived from. The native Americans made root beer from Sassafras root for Pete's sake.
bopper ago
Thanks. Yeah I remember about the Hemp and paper and textile situation, that was extremely interesting. Prisons are an industry, gotta keep 'em filled.
equineluvr 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.
jabba 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.
LostandFound 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.