« Voting | Main | Lincoln Was A Cubs Fan »

Sunday, November 06, 2016

Comments

The treatment of emails seems to have been worse under the Bush admin.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/missing-white-house-emails

I was one of those people who thought the email "scandal" was a real scandal and represented at best incompetence and at worst something underhanded. While I haven't listened to the podcast or read the FBI report, your summary and a few other things I've learned have led me to change my mind.

It's still possible that something "criminal" has taken place, in the sense that a crime might have been technically committed. There are a lot of crimes on the books and a lot of ways someone can violate them without necessarily intending to.

GC,

But In light of the FBI findings, I wonder about establishing http://thelawdictionary.org/criminal-intent

I don't know anything about the laws in question, but I understand that not all crimes require establishing "criminal intent" in order to be prosecutable. However, I'm not a lawyer, so take that with however many grains of salt you need.

When I was a bank teller, we were told we were committing a crime if we even accidentally failed to follow the Bank Secrecy Act (an anti-money laundering law, the same one used to nab Denny Hastert), we were subject to criminal fines (and maybe jail time? It's been a while). Not that I ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for "accidentally" violating it.

I'll add--having skimmed the link you gave me--that perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe there is some way in which "intent" of some sort has to be established that Clinton's email decisions might not necessarily qualify for.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photos

Photography