Director Comey on Secratary Clinton

V

vanzandt

"No intentional willingness to break the law".

Pffff. Isn't there some old adage in legal circles that goes:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content

Of course I am not a lawyer.
 
On one hand I'm not surprised at all, on the other I hate to think what would have happened if I - as a Gov't contractor - had made made the same "extremely careless decisions". :confused:
 
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the decision by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James B. Comey that the Department of Justice not indict former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the disclosure of classified information on her non-state.gov email:

FBI Director James Comey detailed Hillary Clinton’s massive destruction of government records and grossly negligent handling of classified information. Frankly, there’s a disconnect between Comey’s devastating findings and his weak recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Federal prosecutors, independent of politics, need to consider whether to pursue the potential violations of law confirmed by the FBI.

Judicial Watch helped break open the Clinton email scandal and, in the meantime, will independently continue its groundbreaking litigation and investigation.
 
This is a bit like the Benghazi scandal. Shockingly poor judgment, dereliction of duties, nonstop coverups and obstruction of justice, and it all somehow gets swept away and the media spin is Hillary exonerated.

I blame the republicans. Trey Gowdy made a mess of the Benghazi report and its release. The republicans have not really said much about the email scandal, and they never held Comey's feet to the fire like the democrats would have done. Of course, many establishment republicans like Hillary more than Trump and didn't want anything to happen to her.
 
vanzandt said:
"No intentional willingness to break the law".

Pffff. Isn't there some old adage in legal circles that goes:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content

Of course I am not a lawyer.
More...
Of course you are not.
 
This is turning out exactly as I said it would. There has never been such a case prosecuted successfully in modern times, and relatively few indictments in cases such as this, judging, naturally, from only the information we have been given through the media.

The David Petraeus case was quite different. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal)
 
piezoe said:
This is turning out exactly as I said it would. There has never been such a case prosecuted successfully in modern times, and relatively few indictments in cases such as this, judging, naturally, from only the information we have been given through the media.

The David Petraeus case was quite different. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal)
More...

You're right. The Petraeus incident was relatively minor and had little in the way of actual national security implications.

Hillary knowingly or with reckless disregard exposed Top Secret and higher documents to unauthorized exposure in a bid to avoid accountabilty for influence peddling and use of her government post for self-enrichment.
 
piezoe said:
This is turning out exactly as I said it would. There has never been such a case prosecuted successfully in modern times, and relatively few indictments in cases such as this, judging, naturally, from only the information we have been given through the media.

The David Petraeus case was quite different. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal)
More...
Yeah, reckless disregard for the law, rules and regulations, only costs someone their job in the private sector. Government is a whole different story and the higher up you go the more wanton the disregard can be. Then you have the Clintons, who have elevated privileged treatment to a whole new level. While this may seem like a plus politically, and it is, for a nation to put someone like this into the most powerful position in the world is playing Russian roulette with the security of our nation. In the private sector she'd be guilty of criminal negligence and out on her ass. Electing Clinton is to choose a pathological liar and a sociopath. Or we can choose the used car salesman. One might be lying, the other we know is lying. And sadly, half the country cannot distinguish between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top