I’m sorry, ignorance is an acceptable defense, at least if you are Hillary Clinton.
Saved by intent. Lack of criminal intent says no criminal charges should be filed.
FBI Director Comey testifies about it’s investigation and his determination not to prosecute Hillary. Or as Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” In this case, it is the Director of the FBI standing in the gap, as both a servant of the people and a career.
You normally cannot find what you aren’t looking for, or don’t want to find.
Only in the land of the government oversight hearing would Democrats use the number and quality of all the hacking to government server systems as a defense for what Hillary did. Make that clear, the numerous government hacking mitigates Hillary’s private server arrangement — so she looks better than government by comparison. (I knew they could find a way to use all those hacks for some political purpose.)
Isn’t it interesting that the determining process here was “intent” because he had already — at some point — ruled out the negligence factor? Then, by design, he did not meet the bar of intent. Well, if he really looked very closely for intent. And as most of us know, we normally do not find what we aren’t look for or don’t want to find.
It is funny too that a body who does not want to see intent, even if it is 5 feet in from of their face, can see intent all over the place within the politics of the hearing.
Director Comey goes round and round saying there was no evidence astablished of intent, but then they really weren’t looking too hard for any, if at all.
Now we know if you are commit an offense or break the law of conduct in government, it is only prosecutable if they knew they were doing it or violating it.
At numerous times he appeared to contradict himself while navigating the circumstance of the investigation.
So you have here a Sec of State that is going around telling others not to use any private email for work related conduct, while she herself has set up her own rogue server in her house to use for all her communications. But that, when investigated, she is absolved of having any intent.
How can you scold others about following security rules and ignore them yourself, without intent? That’s right, intentionally ignore them yourself, for all your communications and not even set up a government account.
Gross negligence is not grounds to prosecute, but it is an acceptable defense of criminal conduct. But the greatest asset for the Left is to apply the Alinsky rules to the process to defend yourself. And when it doubt, play dumb, whether you commit the act, or whether you are investigating it.
As Comey put it, he has worked hard to “stop the criminalization of negligence.” Then he himself fell back on ignorance of not knowing certain details about the case, including motive. However, by defaolt, he implied there was no intent by saying he found no prosecutable intent — whether he was really looking or not. He didn’t find it.
I did not, in any way, coordinate that. Brings back some fond memories.
RightRing | Bullright