Bob78164 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 6:48 pm
BackInTex wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:22 am
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:03 am
[ Secretary Clinton did not deliberately and knowingly evade a subpoena.
You are, um, being untruthful.
You're wrong. Faux "News" has been lying to you. Again.
Lack of
mens rea is precisely why she wasn't charged.
Leaving that aside, are you seriously taking the position that someone who deliberately failed to cooperate with demands to return classified documents, and lied in order to conceal his possession of those documents, shouldn't be charged? --Bob
Yeah. mens rea. Sure. That's the ticket. Just like the senility excuse for biden. You are a piece of work. And so are the shitheads that think up this bullshit and get away with it.
Someone else expressed it better than that.
"In the matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her secret private e-mail server, there has been a great deal of talk about “mens rea,” the legal doctrine that people generally should not be prosecuted for crimes if they had no criminal intent. These arguments are pretty much 100 percent poppycock, inasmuch as Mrs. Clinton took conscious steps to violate the law, when she either knew or should have known that she was violating it, to achieve an illegal end, that being the evasion of ordinary oversight. Mens rea does not mean, “Well, we don’t think she really meant anything very bad, and she seems a decent sort, so, no prosecution for her.”
As I have written on a number of earlier occasions, it is necessary to keep this in mind: We are governed by criminals. The belief that sufficiently powerful political actors are constrained by statute or Constitution is a fiction, one that we would do well to liberate ourselves from immediately. "