Fair&Balanced
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2016
- 8,137
- 1,026
- 245
- Banned
- #101
it is obvious from your last post that you are viewing this from a political spectrum. I mean how do you with a straight face say " I don't think she committed a crime, but I wanted her indicted ?" I wouldn't have wanted her indicted had she not committed a crime.
Red + Blue:
I said that with regard to Mrs. Clinton's role in "Email-gate," the actus rea aspect of criminality exists and is provable beyond a reasonable doubt and that the mens rea component of criminality does not exist to the extent that it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I've also said that both components are necessary. That is also what Dir. Comey said. If you are going to paraphrase me, fine, but do so completely and accurately.
Red:
How do you with a straight face "cherry pick" what I wrote. taking them out of context, and thereby misrepresent by omission what I did in fact write and mean? You know as well as I do that I have gone out of my way to make clear that the basis for my view and that of the FBI is the lack of clear evidence to show the existence of mens rea in the commission of the acts of "Email-gate." You know that because you've been posting in the thread I created expressly to discuss the role and importance of mens rea. Moreover, I posted multiple references in the OP and elsewhere in that and this thread about how the concept of mens rea plays into the FBI's determination/recommendation to the DOJ.
As I asked you before, did you read them? I did.
This is personal for me.
That may well be a very good reason why you should refrain from partaking in what is supposed to be an objective discussion on the matter. You may be taking the matter too personally and thus not seeing the nature and application of legal theory through the clear lens of neutrality.
You're wrong okay.
What was Comey supposed to say " Okay guys, let's indict her and put the POTUS on the stand to explain why he was sending classified material to an insecure server?"
If she truly hadn't done anything wrong, Comey wouldn't have spent 15 minutes explaining to everyone everything she DID do wrong.
As for it being personal to me, the fact that it is personal to me is why I have a greater understanding of the applicable law than you . I lived it. I began my career LONG before email. Used to be all contacts and such were via phone. And yes, you had to go to the embassy, or another off site location that had a secure phone to discuss classified material. If you called on a non secure land line, your ass would be in the fire. Then came mobile phones, and with them the warnings not to use them to discuss classified material, then came email with the same type warnings. Now , if I as a lowly NSA agent was being told not to use private email accounts to discuss classified material, is it conceivable that Sec of State was not given the same admonishments?
And the thing with security clearances is that the higher up the food chain you move, the more responsible you are supposed to be in your treatment of classified material. This negates Hillary's entire "it wasn't marked classified " bullshit, because at that level, she often ORIGINATES classified material and is tasked with deciding on her own whether that material should be classified or not, and to treat it appropriately.
And here's another thing to scare you, The President has access to nearly EVERYTHING , shouldn't that person be someone who there is not a sniff of a question about their ability to safeguard it?
And yeah, I'm not going to step back on the subject, that fat cow risked MY personal safety so that she could avoid FOIA requests.