Last July, and again just early in May, Comey told us that Hillary could not be prosecuted because he could not "prove criminal intent", the Democrats and the MSM cheered loudly.
“We could not prove that the people sending the information, either in that case or in the other case with the secretary, were acting with any kind of the mens rea — with any kind of criminal intent,” Mr. Comey said.
We all inherently know this to be true -- most of us have friends, or even personally had the experience of being pulled over for speeding or even DUI, telling the officer "I didn't intend to break the law" and the officer immediately expressing his apology for intruding on our lives and being sent on our way. Purity of intent is the all purpose get out of jail free card. I'm guessing that if you have a "Ready for Hillary" bumper sticker, officers likely never even pull you over.
In the past couple of days while the "Comey memo" and the "secret disclosure to the Russians" have filled the news, I've been struck by how "intent" has shifted. Let's assume that the felons leaking the information were "true D's" and 100% accurate with only the pure intent to destroy Trump, a case of obvious virtue.
But given that, how can we be so certain of Trump's intent in his no doubt honorably reported by felons "crimes"? It seems obvious -- he is an R.
In the past couple of days while the "Comey memo" and the "secret disclosure to the Russians" have filled the news, I've been struck by how "intent" has shifted. Let's assume that the felons leaking the information were "true D's" and 100% accurate with only the pure intent to destroy Trump, a case of obvious virtue.
But given that, how can we be so certain of Trump's intent in his no doubt honorably reported by felons "crimes"? It seems obvious -- he is an R.
I believe we all understand that in BOistan, "intent" counts more than "rule of law", and not being a D is prima facia evidence of criminal intent, while being a D sets a high bar indeed as malice of intent must be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For D's, setting up servers, deleting tens of thousdands of emails is not really "evidence" without being able to see into the very soul of the Democrat in question, so no crime can be prosecuted. Comey looked into Hillary's soul, saw "she was a good person", so he was able to put the investigation behind him.
Clearly Flynn is NOT a "good person", so any suggestion that he might be and thus would not have committed whatever crime the felon leakers assert he committed (again, we assume their motive is completely pure and honorable, so the fact of their felony in leaking is not really criminal) ... thus the mere suggestion that someone working in an R capacity is somehow a "good guy", is in itself "interference" -- it goes against the metaphysical truth of D=good, R=evil!
After all, BO endorsed Hillary for POTUS over a month prior to Comey ending the investigation after his boss, Loretta Lynchmob met with Slick Willie on the plane in AZ.
Clearly Flynn is NOT a "good person", so any suggestion that he might be and thus would not have committed whatever crime the felon leakers assert he committed (again, we assume their motive is completely pure and honorable, so the fact of their felony in leaking is not really criminal) ... thus the mere suggestion that someone working in an R capacity is somehow a "good guy", is in itself "interference" -- it goes against the metaphysical truth of D=good, R=evil!
After all, BO endorsed Hillary for POTUS over a month prior to Comey ending the investigation after his boss, Loretta Lynchmob met with Slick Willie on the plane in AZ.
We seem to move ever closer to the point where not pledging allegiance to "The Party" (TP-D) and the POWER it represents is itself a crime!
'via Blog this'
Rock solid, Bill !! Well said. Mike
ReplyDelete