“what difference does it make”
Where have we heard that before?
“Mistakes were made”
Where have we heard that before?
This is either the worst Freudian slip ever by one of these Federal black-robed lawyer-with-connections, or he's rubbing it in our faces.
If he’s saying that *intent* is not a necessary element of the crime, he’s right.
I haven’t read the article yet. Not in the mood to get more agitated right now. Maybe later.
It’s an unusual statute because most crimes require both the mens rea (state of mind), and actus reas (the act).
The federal statute that Hillary, by Cardinal Comey’s own acknowledgement, violated requires no evidence of mental state.
That suggests that the crime is so serious, that we, the people, don’t give a rat’s ass how she did it or whether any of it was intentional.
That’s what made the Cardinal’s behavior so egregious. He deliberately misled the entire country about the law, just to let Hillary off the hook. One. More. Time.
There could be a cogent SOL argument in there, though, since there’s no hope that they’ll properly charge the bish with treason.