posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:22 PM
Ugh, I thought I was out of this discussion but I just have to clarify something about precedent. Precedent isn't a rule but a suggestion. If you get
as similar case under similar circumstances, you can do x because that's what we did before. That's all it is. If precedent was the end all, be all of
legalism they could've just changed the law to require intent as the threshold for prosecution. Anyone with any legal experience knows that precedent
is only precedent until something more serious happens, and then a new decision should be made.
There have indeed been plenty of minor cases that were not prosecuted because there was no intent, that is true. However, such a precedent is not
normally applied by prosecutors to a more grave violation, because that's just not the same as a minor violation obviously. All the "precedents" Dems
like to cite are not even close to what Clinton was documented as having done, which is why those precedents wouldn't apply. There was no precedent of
such a serious violation. Not to mention, as someone posted, Comey himself stated there's no way Clinton didn't know what she was doing, proving what
I asserted earlier in the thread that with her experience and training it would be inconceivable that she could not know she was breaking the law. If
you know you're breaking the law and do it, that's intent. No matter how you spin it, that's intent, by any definition, legal or otherwise. Dems and
closet Dems who pretend they have no traditional political leanings can pretend otherwise all they want, but she clearly would've had to know the
proper procedures and what was legal and what wasn't, and willfully disregarded that.