Best thing President Trump has done in office is to let Liberals clarify the new rules.
Thanks to Hillary’s email investigation, we now know that mishandling classified information will result in no charges, as long as I didn’t intend to give them to the enemy.
We know from Jussie Smollett that 16 counts of felony hate-crime can be dismissed for a couple of days volunteer work, because it’s a first offense.
I’m sure these rules will apply to me. I’m looking forward to receiving the same Justice as other, better politically-connected people receive.
And it would never happened if President Trump hadn’t been in office.
Joe doakes
After the “most transparent administration in history”, it’s good to have an actual transparent administration.
I’m not sure if I’m joking or not.
Smollett’s dismissal especially rankles because his “work” is a couple of days around Jesse Jackson, one of the chief purveyors of race baiting in the country. Irritating. We’re signing up for a LOT more of the same, sad to say.
Joe, yes, that’s exactly right, mishandling confidential information, without intent to mishandle or disclose, is NOT a crime. That’s why Clinton wasn’t indicted, and shouldn’t have been. Like fraud, you have to have intent.
With respect to Smollett, I suspect that you’ll find, like Trump-Mueller, there was evidence of misconduct, but not enough to prosecute. Are we a nation which now simply assumes guilt?
As far as that goes, if this were a white man who had claimed abuse by blacks or Hispanics, do you think that Trump would be calling for a FEDERAL investigation? We need to pull back from politically motivated investigations, like Benghazi or E-mailgate or Fostergate, and if those were wrong, if the investigation of Trump was politically motivated (though I believe it wasn’t, he fired Comey who was looking into -rightly – how Putin had tried to interfere in our election) but if you feel it was, then doing it back is also wrong. Where does it stop?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Just take a quick glance at subsection (f). Gross negligence is a completely separate offense from intentional distribution. This is why Comey had to re-write his exoneration letter – the original draft used the statutory language that would have required her to be convicted.
I’m not the only person reading the law that way. Note the past interpretations by courts is consistent with my reading.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266
So the plain language of the law, the weight of historical precedent, and Comey’s hasty revision of his letter, are squarely against your interpretation, Penigma.
Worse, Justin’s guilt wasn’t “assumed” and he wasn’t lynched, his guilt was investigated and he was indicted. 16 felony counts. If there isn’t enough evidence to warrant prosecution, then you don’t waste time at the grand jury. The fact the charges were filed and dismissed in a secret deal with the records sealed indicates there is plenty of evidence but somebody doesn’t want it to come out. Now we learn the Obamas’ fixer was involved, and Jesse Jackson, which lends even more credence to the supposition that the prosecutor threw the case for political reasons. That reeks of corruption so badly that even as venal and corrupt a Democrat machine politician as Rahm Emmanuel thinks it stinks.
Not your best effort, Pen.