That's a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Lie to others if you must, but don't deceive yourself.
I don't know what her motive(s) was/were on the relevant issues. Neither can I place myself in her shoes and determine what might I have done. I can by inferential logic conclude an innocent and criminal behavior attached to what is factual. For instance, the FBI guy said there was an indication of classification on some paragraphs of the emails received by her... a '(c)'. Now then. She may have known that meant 'classified' or may not have. I'd know IF that was the norm and I was aware of that. However, the staff folks may not have known and sent the email by mistake and she opened and responded. In either case Mens Rea is not present as I see it. In this thread folks seem to use Actus Reus to confirm Mens Rea. You have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - the mind set of the party and that was not achieved as per FBI. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned she did not know a crime was being committed (by her or anyone else).
IF I can hold she did nothing wrong why would I attach all the things you say she did wrong (criminal) to her. I say she didn't do what you say or she did some things you say but not knowingly doing so with a bad heart. She, therefore, returns to her status quo ante in my mind. Pure as the driven snow.
Moonbeam, thought you lived in CA?
re: marijuana
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Lie to others if you must, but don't deceive yourself.
That's a mouth full of condemnation, it seems to me. You assert that I am lying about what ought to be simply obvious to anyone reasonably versed in what under pins our judicial system. Be that as it may but to further assert or at least suggest that I am deceiving myself by stating the obvious or what (again) ought to be obvious suggests you've not a clue regarding this HRC email reality. However, you're not alone. I listened to the hearings in the Oversight Committee the other day and marveled at the well crafted statements and suggestions made by the Republican members. They just about called Comey a bribed Director of FBI and someone without the knowledge to render a proper decision. It showed the worst of both sides and produced insight into bias should one look without blinders. Do you have blinders on? Approach this armed with the rules of our Justice system and apply the law to the facts. Don't weaken the parts you don't like and deal with facts that you know are facts and try hard not to call something a fact cuz it fits your argument when it is really an assumption of something.That's a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Lie to others if you must, but don't deceive yourself.
BUt I can SEE the evidence of her crimes and I can see her lies. I understand (and agree with) Comey's reasoning not to prosecute, but that doesn't mean I should ignore what is extremely apparent.Free pass, hehe. Where have I heard that before. Justice is the equal distribution of bad decisions.....
I think LR wound disagree. Perhaps he will explain again why he never succumbed to the notion of her guilt in the first place, that under a
transcendently moral system of justice she maintains a pristine state.
What I see is that he has accorded her the dignity due any citizen not guilty of crime and you lack the integrity to do the same. For you its all about the opinions you have. You are self indulgent.
No special insight, dude. But go through her statements defending herself and compare them with Comey's reported results. She lied to us at every single stage.I tried to present a case of being not guilty... (she is always innocent until guilt is proved) of criminal offenses and I think the result of which wipes the slate clean. That slate ought be clean throughout the process in any case but let's assume she made mistakes and let's assume she responded to the allegations of criminal wrongdoing in a truthful manner as she believed was the honest evaluation of her actions. How can I find fault in that? Well, I can't.
Now you wonder about my thinking about her potential to be president. Well, that bit is easy. I think she has all the requisite qualifications necessary to function in that position the ability to cross the street notwithstanding. You say she lied about everything. Your special insight into the mind of Hillary is... well, informative should I choose to accept you possess that special insight. I reject it and instead apply my own and previously articulated position of her statements. I suspect you have a bias controlling your analysis. I'm not sure that you accept the outcome of FBI's analysis. It appears to me you have supplanted the FBI position with your own. That, if true, certainly informs your position and is consistent with what you've written regarding how my position is informed. We simply apply what our mind conjures and in this case we conjure differently.
Mens Rea does not protect from gross negligence, even if you accept the dubious notion that the smartest woman in the world was utterly clueless at doing her job for four years. As far as equal justice, we already know we don't have that. We see people regularly prosecuted for mishandling classified documents without anyone even inquiring as to whether they knew they were committing a crime. Do you recall ANYONE questioning whether David Petraeus knew he was committing a crime by giving his biographer/lover access to classified documents?The bold bit I just have to take issue with. 'Bad enough' suggests all the elements of crime are present but there is some sort of threshold one must proceed beyond to be indicted. Like; one must send 29 classified emails to be indicted but 28 is an ok scenario. Mens Rea.... Mens Rea.... she could have sent a bazillion as far as I'm concerned and not be subjected to an indictment failing to show she did so with a bad heart.
Look... All we have is our Justice system protecting us from the evil folks living in other places have to live with. That Justice system suggests that its rules must apply for each person regardless of any other consideration. If you choose to apply some rules or only some folks get them or that some sort of failure occurred and someone 'went free' who was otherwise guilty then you chip away at the system and if you do it enough and long enough you might as well install Sharia or perhaps the Church of Rome as the arbiter of justice.
IOW, if it were possible for me to have witnessed a crime and be a juror and that I knew the defendant did the crime I'd still vote according to the evidence presented... If the prosecution failed to present compelling evidence of guilt I'd vote 'Not guilty'. BTW, it is not 'innocent' but, rather 'not guilty'.