Question 1: Under what circumstances will Barack Obama's Justice Department charge and convict you, and seek and obtain a prison sentence, on the basis of a crime (production and shipment of infected produce), that you committed out of gross negligence, but without criminal intent?
A: When you're an 82 year-old egg producer.
Question 2: Under what circumstances will Barack Obama's Justice Department refuse to charge or convict you, or seek any criminal punishment, on the basis of your grossly negligent, but putatively unintentional, exposure of top secret national security information?
A: When you're Hillary Clinton. See Director Comey's testimony today. Director Comey's position is that Hillary's conduct matches the behavior prohibited in Section 793(f), but that it would be "unfair," and "constitutionally suspect," to seek criminal punishment because that provision allows conviction merely on the basis of gross negligence.
****************************************************
I thought it was possible that, for the first time in 50 years, I would go an entire campaign and agree with almost nothing the Republican candidate said.
I was wrong. The system is rigged. And it's rigged especially quaintly if you're a Clinton. If Madame Hillary is, not merely exempted from punishment lesser people face for criminal negligence, but rewarded with the Presidency, for God's sake, the anthem "Equal Justice Under Law" becomes a bawdy joke.
So, Bill, you believe that Comey was lying when he stated that HRC's status (as a Clinton or a presidential candidate) and political ramifications played absolutely no role in his decision? And you believe that if the subject/suspect/target wasn't HRC (but was Joe Schmo) his decision would have been different?
If that's your belief, than Comey is not the man you previously proclaimed he was, right? Because if that's your belief than Comey is just another cog in a rigged system.
Quote where I said anything like what you're trying to attribute to me.
Then answer whether DOJ, of which Comey is a part (although he is not a prosecutor) did, in fact, just charge, convict and successfully seek imprisonment for the egg producer under a non-mens rea statute. Did DOJ just do that? Yes? No?
Lastly, get over the notion that the problem here is me, or Comey for that matter. The problem is Clinton, whose grossly deceitful behavior violated a statute neither any court nor any DOJ internal opinion has questioned.
For sure, you didn't use the word "lying." But come on, Bill, the logic of your agreeing with Trump's "rigged" system tirade, coupled with your remaining comments, leads to the conclusion that that's your (new) opinion of Comey.
At least, IMO, that's the clear import of your commentary.
If I am wrong, I am sorry for misconstruing your words.
Bill, take a look at Charles Krauthammer's WaPo opinion piece ("Comey:A Theory") just posted at 7:46 p.m. ET.
I believe Krauthammer hits the nail on the head regarding Comey's motivation. And, as I previously stated on this blog, it was almost identical to Justice Roberts' motivation in saving Obamacare.
Your thoughts on Krauthammer's thoughts would be appreciated.
Do you think the system might look rigged to the defendant whose federal conviction and prison sentence was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit 24 hours ago based on DOJ's argument that a gross negligence, no-intent-required statute is constitutionally valid?
I think the system might looked rigged to tens of thousands of guilty defendants in prisons all across America. I think the system might looked rigged to tens of millions of law-abiding Americans.
But, let's face it, the rich and powerful in America have almost always fared better in our civil and criminal justice system than the poor and powerless.
Yes, we have, have always had, and will always have a rigged system that favors the rich and powerful. And there is nothing that Donald Trump, Bill Otis, or anyone else can do to eliminate that rigged sysytem.
The HRC email case is just another of a very long-list of examples of Unequal Justice Under The Law.
Well, DOJ can take the position that criminal negligence statutes are valid, or that they aren't, but it can't take both positions on the same day.
In fact, such statutes are valid, as has been the case for hundreds of years, if not longer. See United States v. Fleming, http://openjurist.org/739/f2d/945/united-states-v-fleming
ethel rosenberg could not be reached for comment