http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/05/why_does_hillary_s_lack_of_proven_intent_matter_in_the_eyes_of_the_lawWhy Does Hillary's Lack of Proven Intent Matter in the Eyes of the Law?
July 05, 2016
Listen to it Button
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here we are back to the intent again. Jeffrey Toobin, well-known leftist and liberal Democrat, legal analyst over at CNN. And he, of course, was brought in immediately when Comey finished his press conference to tell us what we had just seen. And Kate Bolduan said, "So, Jeff, what's your big take-away from this?"
TOOBIN: It's an enormous relief for Hillary Clinton and her campaign! This was a dagger aimed at the heart of her campaign, and she has avoided being charged. Simple as that. I also think it is worth focusing on what Director Comey said about the nature of these sorts charges. These cases have only been brought when there has been knowing and intentional violation of the rules of classified information. Here, the issue of intent is critical. She has said publicly -- undoubtedly she said in her interview -- that she never intentionally disclosed classified information. The FBI found nothing to refute that. And that's why she wasn't charged.
RUSH: Man, oh, man! You know, isn't it interesting how the whole issue of intent seems to be relevant when it involves Democrats in government? So does this mean that they discovered that Petraeus intended to share classified information with his mistress and that that's why they got him? That's why they got him, because he intended to imperil the security of the US? Comey said that she was sending out top secret emails that were both marked and unmarked. How can you not know? How can you be so ignorant? Is this a defense? Well, in Hillary's case, yeah.
I guess she'll be as ignorant as the day is long if it avoids an indictment or charges, 'cause at the end of the day the bottom line's what counts, and she's scot-free here. But, for crying out loud, how can somebody eminently qualified to be secretary of state not know what she's doing? Is that gonna be the defense? If you listen to Toobin here, it sounds like that's what they're gonna hang their hat on. Well, you know, Comey couldn't find any evidence that she meant to do this. Really? That's the positive? That's what's supposed to relieve us of any concern? Oh, the fact is that she did send classified does data, but she didn't mean to! That makes it okay; that makes it all better.
How many times have you heard...?
I know this might be a specific case, and even though my dad was a lawyer, I'm not, and I probably will be corrected on this. But it just seems to me that we hear all the time that lack of intent is no shield. "It doesn't matter whether you intended to do this or not. You still did it." I can't tell you number of times I've heard people say that and had people explain to them, "The fact you didn't know... Ignorance of the law, the fact he didn't intend it? Sorry, sir. It's of no concern. You committed the act." How could she not...? This whole business of intent... "Well, I didn't intend to send classified data!" Well, who would admit that they ever did?
Anyway, that's what I said.
This case is not over in the political sense, and it's gonna require some work to keep up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I checked the relevant statute here during the break, and at first I thought it doesn't say anything about intent. And I kept reading, and it does. The statute it involved here, 18 US Code 793: "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense..." It does mention intent, so it is required as part of this particular statute. And I just wanted to confirm that. Still weird.
END TRANSCRIPT
