A former Department of Justice attorney said Tuesday Hillary Clinton's actions regarding her use of private email can lead to criminal prosecution, regardless of the FBI's decision to not recommend charges.
Jacob Frenkel told CNBC he disagrees with FBI director James Comey regarding a key piece of the puzzle: intent.
"What I found a little bit more troubling is the continued and repeated reference to intent," Frenkel said. "They found no evidence of intent. There was one other point that he made during the press conference that I found a little bit troubling, which was they could not find any other such case historically.
"As to the issue of intent, he did describe what I would call a significant pattern, a significant practice, that there is a substitute in the law for criminal intent."
Frenkel argued that Clinton's pattern of mishandling classified information — Comey said the FBI found 110 emails that contained classified information — shows a level of intent to disobey the law.
"In lay terms, it's the ostrich head in the sand. In legal terms, it's called deliberate ignorance, or willful blindness or conscious avoidance," Frenkel said. "That is a point that he did not address and it certainly sounds like the type of situation that a reasonable prosecutor in other circumstances involving somebody who is not the secretary of state may well have considered finding that there is a legal substitute for criminal intent.
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
4 comments:
So, by extension, if one chooses to drink beyond the legal limit but had no 'intent' to do so...?
LOL It's started already. What a dark, dismal day in our Justice System's history.
Everyone whose been on Fox News has underscored the facts that they as prosecutors would indict her in a minute so his claims that no prosecutor would prosecute is ridiculous. Why would he trash his career over a Clinton? They're not worth it. Believe me. They're not.
Her intent was to end-run the security that was in place, which she did, and then tried to eliminate the evidence that she did. The intent was to violate the rules that she knew were in place, which she did for years, with no one raising an eyebrow.
Post a Comment