Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 7:13am

Laws Are For Little People

images

 

 

 

That is the only conclusion one can draw from the presentation by the FBI Director today.  The mishandling of the e-mails was a strict liability offense, no mens rea required.  In other words no criminal intent need be shown in regard to Hillary Clinton which would make the prosecution much simpler.  Former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online explains how Director Comey in effect rewrote the applicable criminal statute to get Hillary off the hook:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: 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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

Go here to read the rest.  There is a reason why mishandling of classified information is usually a strict liability offense.  The government wants to convey to the individuals the gravity of the trust which has been granted to them and that there are severe penalties for handling such material in a negligent manner which, according to the FBI Director is precisely what Clinton did.  Many individuals have been prosecuted for such offenses.  That Clinton is not being subject to such prosecution is solely a result of who she is.  This reduces our criminal justice system to a farce where the powerful skate while those without power feel the full wrath of the law.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
.Anzlyne
.Anzlyne
Tuesday, July 5, AD 2016 3:38pm

He headed the investigation and laid out all the ways she did wrong, but said no charges… Was the prosecute/not prosecute decision Lynch’s or Comey’s?

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Tuesday, July 5, AD 2016 5:39pm

“Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” really means:
.
“What is permitted for Jove, is not permitted for the cow.”
.
To apply to this to that witch, it should say:
.
“Quod licet Herae, non licet bovi.”
.
“What is permitted for Hera, is not permitted for the cow.”
.
“Licet” goes into our English word “licit.” Rome’s Hera – Livia Drusilla Augusta Caesar – would be right at home in modern day America. For her, what she desired was always licit. People died to make it that way.

Nate winchester
Nate winchester
Tuesday, July 5, AD 2016 7:43pm

Thank you for that, Don.

Anna Bucciarelli
Wednesday, July 6, AD 2016 2:22am

Terrific! Thanks indeed.

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, July 6, AD 2016 8:53am

TAC, Brilliant comment. It will be amply shared and passed on.

Micha Elyi
Micha Elyi
Wednesday, July 6, AD 2016 3:05pm

Capitalism: You have two cows. Capitalism: You have two cows. You start a dairy…
–Donald R. McClarey

The classic version is “Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.”

Micha Elyi
Micha Elyi
Wednesday, July 6, AD 2016 3:14pm

Quod licit lovi,
non licit bovi.

This explains how Jupiter accomplished his seduction of Europa. It does not permit the crooked Mrs. Clinton’s covering for Bill after his sexual assaults.

Phillip
Phillip
Wednesday, July 6, AD 2016 7:22pm

“Distributism: You name one of your cows Chesterton and one of them Belloc, and argue with them about what distributism means. Nothing much else ever gets done.”

Perhaps a variant is: You have two cows. A person who really, really understands Catholic Social teaching (as opposed to you) takes one of your cows and gives it to a person who knows nothing about cows, has no interest in cows and rather keep his job at the local Walmart. The second cow dies though social justice is obtained. Its your fault for not understanding love and mercy.

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, July 7, AD 2016 3:47am

Indeed. 🙂

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top