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.
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.
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.