By Jonathan E.P. Moore
I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE; BUT FOR ME, GIVE ME ‘THE LETTER OF THE LAW’ OR GIVE ME THE ‘POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INTENT!’
I can’t wait to see Loretta Lynch on the hill today being grilled by Trey Gowdy, and the rest of the last truth seekers in the country! Should be ‘very interesting!!’
The truth of the matter is that Comey wasn’t going to be a
patsy for the Obama administration! He knew that the fix was in, and with the
scripted timeline over those days, knew Lynch wouldn’t move forward on an
indictment, and threw the ball back in her court! If you can read between the
lines, I think you can see how this all went down. Bill Clinton got some
insider information, after all, he is a 2 term past President and probably used
that to his advantage by cashing in a few favors. Now if he can get to Lynch
before Comey’s Press conference with the info, then Lynch could spin it to make
it look like there were no improprieties and divert to the findings of the FBI.
This would let her off the hook of having to do her job and making the decision
of having to follow the letter of the law and indicting Hillary! Comey wasn’t
part of the questioning, she wasn’t under oath, and there was no recording of
the proceedings! When pressed he said that it was a unanimous team decision not
to move forward, but then again said he only spoke to a couple members of the
team that interviewed Hillary.
It’s amazing to me how the new ‘get out of jail free card’
by the Politically Correct Ideologues, is ‘intent,’ and not the letter of the
law……
‘Intent’ is what got Obama’s subsides for Obamacare that were only accessible through state run agencies, and the letter of the law, to the ‘intent’ side of the ledger, which is the way the Supreme Court ruled! Since when has the letter of the law been able to be interpreted through using intent? “I didn’t intend to drink too much, and I didn’t intend to get behind the wheel and drive drunk, and I sure as hell didn’t mean to run that stop sign and kill that kid on that bike because I ran through that stop sign!! Hmm, Sounds good to me!
“The Supreme Court in America adjudicates on acts passed through the political system by Congress and President. The Supreme Court’s task is to declare whether an act is constitutional or unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court cannot initiate a bill/act – it can only adjudicate.”
The Rule of Law states categorically that:
all people are subject to the law of the land and shall be treated equally regardless of color, status or creed
the government is subject to the law
no-one is above the law
everybody should know how they will be treated by the law and this treatment shall be the same for everybody
America should have a “government of laws and not of men.”
This power is based on the Supreme Court’s ability to act as the interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. Neither the president nor Congress has the right to do this. The Supreme Court is the only body that has the right to interpret what the Constitution means and it is this right that gives it the power to scrutinize all aspects of government. Ironically this power is not laid down in the Constitution.
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” Hamilton
So are we to conclude that statutory language of Congress has a "sell by" date? That if no one is prosecuted under the clear words of a statute, the meaning of those words changes over time? Or does it change only if the acts of a special public official are involved?
Moreover, having consciously declined to follow the clear language of the statute, Comey also decided that Clinton did not have specific intent, because that standard, in his view, requires that a person knowingly broke the law. Specific intent didn't usually require proof that a person knew her acts violated the law, only that she specifically intended to commit the acts that were unlawful.
When a prosecutor brings a criminal case against a defendant, say, for bank robbery, does any reasonable person believe that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant was conversant with the statute forbidding bank robbery? No, he just must prove the person intended to rob the bank -- an act forbidden by the law.
Is the intent of both political parties to ignore the Constitution and bypass the Congress? Is it the intent of Obama to break the immigration Laws that are already on the books, and that have worked for years, but to allow unvetted immigrants and refugees who are not coming to America to assimilate and follow our laws and rituals, but quite the opposite? How about this one, I intended to pay my taxes, but just couldn’t find the time or money because I had more important things to spend my money on other than seeing my taxpayer dollars being used to pay for illegal votes and funding illegal immigrants by paying for their medical care, housing, food, cell phones etc., before our legal citizens get their due!!
The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or
grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare
federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based
without the need of the government to prove intent.
Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan -- but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.
And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home -- someone who had a secret security clearance herself -- because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.
The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100
emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of
those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was
secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues
by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out
"secret" markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of
her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve
such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations
of drone strikes in Pakistan and names of American intelligence agents
operating in the Middle East under cover.
Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm
between extreme recklessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge
it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after
a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a
dime's worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme recklessness is
gross negligence.I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE; BUT FOR ME, GIVE ME ‘THE LETTER OF THE LAW’ OR GIVE ME THE ‘POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INTENT!’
I can’t wait to see Loretta Lynch on the hill today being grilled by Trey Gowdy, and the rest of the last truth seekers in the country! Should be ‘very interesting!!’
‘Intent’ is what got Obama’s subsides for Obamacare that were only accessible through state run agencies, and the letter of the law, to the ‘intent’ side of the ledger, which is the way the Supreme Court ruled! Since when has the letter of the law been able to be interpreted through using intent? “I didn’t intend to drink too much, and I didn’t intend to get behind the wheel and drive drunk, and I sure as hell didn’t mean to run that stop sign and kill that kid on that bike because I ran through that stop sign!! Hmm, Sounds good to me!
“The Supreme Court in America adjudicates on acts passed through the political system by Congress and President. The Supreme Court’s task is to declare whether an act is constitutional or unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court cannot initiate a bill/act – it can only adjudicate.”
The Rule of Law states categorically that:
all people are subject to the law of the land and shall be treated equally regardless of color, status or creed
the government is subject to the law
no-one is above the law
everybody should know how they will be treated by the law and this treatment shall be the same for everybody
America should have a “government of laws and not of men.”
This power is based on the Supreme Court’s ability to act as the interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. Neither the president nor Congress has the right to do this. The Supreme Court is the only body that has the right to interpret what the Constitution means and it is this right that gives it the power to scrutinize all aspects of government. Ironically this power is not laid down in the Constitution.
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” Hamilton
So are we to conclude that statutory language of Congress has a "sell by" date? That if no one is prosecuted under the clear words of a statute, the meaning of those words changes over time? Or does it change only if the acts of a special public official are involved?
Moreover, having consciously declined to follow the clear language of the statute, Comey also decided that Clinton did not have specific intent, because that standard, in his view, requires that a person knowingly broke the law. Specific intent didn't usually require proof that a person knew her acts violated the law, only that she specifically intended to commit the acts that were unlawful.
When a prosecutor brings a criminal case against a defendant, say, for bank robbery, does any reasonable person believe that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant was conversant with the statute forbidding bank robbery? No, he just must prove the person intended to rob the bank -- an act forbidden by the law.
Is the intent of both political parties to ignore the Constitution and bypass the Congress? Is it the intent of Obama to break the immigration Laws that are already on the books, and that have worked for years, but to allow unvetted immigrants and refugees who are not coming to America to assimilate and follow our laws and rituals, but quite the opposite? How about this one, I intended to pay my taxes, but just couldn’t find the time or money because I had more important things to spend my money on other than seeing my taxpayer dollars being used to pay for illegal votes and funding illegal immigrants by paying for their medical care, housing, food, cell phones etc., before our legal citizens get their due!!
Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan -- but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.
And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home -- someone who had a secret security clearance herself -- because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.
Democrats keep saying Republicans are engaging in a partisan witch hunt -- as if Republicans aren't rightly outraged that Comey virtually admitted Clinton violated the clear language of the statute yet decided not to prosecute.
Clinton maintained an illegal, unsecured server in violation of law, policy and common sense to protect her political privacy. As I’ve been shouting for over a year, the server itself is the smoking gun. If it’s illegal to ship classified information in a secret pneumatic tube from your office to your home, the mere fact that you had a pneumatic tube installed for such purposes is all the proof of intent you need.
But it’s worse than that. When Clinton and her aides were informed that what she was doing was wrong, she kept doing it anyway. When the facts came to light, she lied to the public. As Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) noted during Thursday’s hearing, those lies illuminate her intent. You only lie about not doing something wrong if you know that what you did is wrong.
It is a sad day for the rule of law and for the state of our national security because Comey's decision takes the teeth out of the law and strongly weakens any deterrent force of the statute.
Comey may have succeeded in convincing himself that he is ensuring that Hillary Clinton is not subject to a different standard than the ordinary citizen, but through his explanations alone, he has convinced us of the exact opposite.
Why does any American stand for this?
PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, COPY AND PASTE, REFORMAT, ADD YOUR OWN 2 CENTS AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ‘WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING’ WORDS, ONLY IF YOU AGREE, AND IF YOU DO AGREE TAKE THE TIME TO SUPPORT ‘AMERICA FIRST’ AND ‘MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!’
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks
I believe most people stand for it because most [people are hooked on other peoples money, be it SSDI, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, Housing subsidy, Child care payments, Student loan or home loan guarantees, unemployment... only a few of hundreds of programs where government takes money from one person and gives it to another. Just like the states are hooked on others states money in the same way, a race to see who can get the most from someone else.. there are no morals today, there are no principles.. only addiction and no one cares as long as they get theirs.
ReplyDelete