Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fasceto

How about simple intent?

Does the law really require malice? Does it require specific intent?


2 posted on 05/05/2016 8:19:53 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BenLurkin

No intent required under the law.


6 posted on 05/05/2016 8:21:21 PM PDT by Newbomb Turk (Hey Newbomb, where's your brothers ElCamino ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I had no malice when I ran red lights and sped and went around double yellows when i was a lad.

Cop didn’t seem to give a @#$@#.

And if I had hurt a person doing one of those things, he REALLY wouldn’t have given a @#$@.


10 posted on 05/05/2016 8:22:27 PM PDT by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

It doesn’t. Does anyone thing Gen. Petraeus was malicious in his mishandling?


17 posted on 05/05/2016 8:23:58 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I just saw Hannity’s show tonight and Judge Janine said that she was 100% certain the FBI was going to forward a criminal referral to the Attorney General.


27 posted on 05/05/2016 8:27:50 PM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I THINK the law punishes simple carelessness. If you light a fire on the floor in your apartment , what do you think might happen? If you allow your children to play with rattlesnakes, are you not responsible for endangerment?


40 posted on 05/05/2016 8:34:04 PM PDT by RobbyS (```JMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Intent is absolutely not required. Everyone knows she is stupid. That is NO defense. Get this indictment going NOW . Why is there any more delay?


80 posted on 05/05/2016 8:54:12 PM PDT by WENDLE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIhGgrhQeE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

What about willful destruction of government documents? She claimed some 30,000 deleted emails were all personal in nature, yet there have been hundreds of recovered emails pertaining to government business. As the custodian of those records, her ordering them scrubbed (without a cloth) constitutes willful destruction. IANAL.


88 posted on 05/05/2016 8:56:43 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (If a border fence isn't effective, why is there a border fence around the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

No, it does not require intent to harm.


121 posted on 05/05/2016 9:37:34 PM PDT by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

You just need to be reckless in handling the info that’s all


132 posted on 05/05/2016 9:59:52 PM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

This is the road map to her exoneration. The regime will pick a statute that she did not violate and proclaim her innocent under that statute, for example the espionage act that requires specific intent. In the meantime they will ignore the other statutes she clearly violated, those not requiring specific intent.

The WaPo is ahead of the game here softening the beach head by defacto creating the reality needed to exonerate Hillary, namely, that she not only did not act with intent or even specific intent, oh no, it’s that there was no malicious intent!! Trolls will also be appearing here on FR, like faceto, to tweek us and get us going.

I do think she skates. I also think that the knots she and her media allies will have to twist themselves into in order to allow her to skate end up playing into the Trump narrative of the powerful DC insiders being above the law. It will hurt her.

As for the case, to me it seems the analysis is clear:

1) What statutes are implicated? There are more than one so cherry picking one over the other is silly.

2) For each statute what are the elements necessary in order to establish criminal conduct. For example, each statute may have different intent requirements. Some may be strict negligence. Negligent homocide, for example, does not require malice aforethougt but is still a punishable crime.

3) Apply the elements of each statute implicated to the facts of the case.

4) Render the recommendation to go forward or not go forward with the case.


137 posted on 05/05/2016 11:01:36 PM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

No, the law does not so require. Did Gen Petraeus have malice and intent to harm the country? Hell no!


149 posted on 05/06/2016 3:42:01 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Merely setting up the server, and having the first piece of classified data land on the disk drive, was enough for jail time for you and I.


156 posted on 05/06/2016 5:45:15 AM PDT by ImaGraftedBranch (by reading this, you have collapsed my wave function. Thanks, pal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson