The legal principle that a crime requires intent must be defended to uphold liberty, even if it means absolving Hillary Clinton.
Judge Napolitano in his article “Two Smoking Guns: FBI on Hillary’s Case” explains the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. There are two aspects of the investigation. The original source of her trouble is the charge that she failed to safeguard national security secrets.
As Judge Napolitano explains, this crime does not require intent and can result from negligence or simply from a lack of awareness that a secret is being revealed, as in the case that Judge Napolitano provides of the US Navy sailor who was prosecuted for espionage because a “selfie” he sent to his girlfriend revealed a sonar screen in the background. An even more egregious case is that of the US Marine who was prosecuted for using email to alert superiors to the presence of an al-Quada operative inside a US military compound. The email is considered unsecure and thus the Marine was prosecuted for revealing a secret known only to himself.
In view of these unjustified prosecutions of US military personnel, the FBI has no alternative to recommending that Hillary be indicted.
Whether Hillary will be indicted ostensibly depends on the Justice (sic) Department and the White House. In fact, it is unlikely that either Wall Street or the military/security complex wants Hillary indicted as both have invested too many millions of dollars in her presidential candidacy, and both interest groups are more powerful than the Justice (sic) Department and the White House.
I do not think that Hillary was a good US senator and Secretary of State, and I do not think she is qualified to be President of the US. Nevertheless, I do wonder how important the secrets are about which she is accused of negligence. Even the one possible serious disclosure that Judge Napolitano provides of Hillary forwarding a photo from a satellite of a North Korean nuclear facility doesn’t strike me as important. The North Koreans, along with the entirety of the world, know that the US has satellites and communication intercepts operating against them 24/7.
Many things with secret classifications are not secrets. In my career I had many security clearances. As staff associate, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, I had top secret clearances because secret weapon systems were at stake. It was a joke among the staff that many of the “secrets” were available in the public defense literature.
As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury I received the CIA’s daily briefing of the President. It was boring reading. I came to the conclusion that the CIA was not going to report anything of consequence that possibly could turn out to be wrong.
Later, as a member of a secret Presidential committee to investigate the CIA’s view of the Soviet Union’s ability to withstand an arms race, I had very high clearances as the committee had subpoena power over the CIA. If the Kremlin had had access to the top secret documents, all the Kremlin would have learned is that the CIA had a much higher opinion of the capability of the Soviet economy than did the Kremlin.
Distinguished law professors have concluded that the US government classifies documents primarily in order to hide its own mistakes and crimes. We see this over and over. The US government can escape accountability for the most incredible mistakes and the worse crimes against the US Constitution and humanity simply by saying “national security.”
In my opinion, it is the second FBI investigation of Hillary that should be pursued. This is a much more serious possible offense. There is suspicion that Bill and Hillary privatized their public offices and turned them into a money faucet for themselves.
This is a serious problem everywhere in the West. A few years out of office and Bill and Hillary can drop $3 million on their daughter’s wedding. A year or so out of office and Tony Blair was worth $50 million. As an Assistant Secretary of Defense once told me, “European governments report to us. We pay them, and we own them.”
In Anglo-American legal history, one foundation of liberty is the requirement that crime requires intent. I do not believe that Hillary intentionally revealed secrets. If she was negligent, that should be made public and should be sufficient to disqualify her from occupying the White House. What is clear to me is that the legal principle that crime requires intent is far more important than “getting Hillary.” This foundational principle of liberty should be protected even if it means letting Hillary go.
And certainly Obama should pardon the sailor and marine.
Dr. Roberts is completely wrong in this case. When she became Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was educated about the nature of her job and the nature of the information she would deal with. She confirmed her understanding of such when she agreed in writing to be bound by the various laws that govern how U.S. government employees are supposed to handle sensitive information.
Hillary Clinton, it is being increasingly clear, ignored the signed agreement. Unfortunately for her — and, apparently form Dr. Roberts — when she became Secretary of State, she kissed good bye to the notion that “that a crime requires intent…”. All that is required for the Secretary of State to commit a crime against national security is for the Secretary of State to be sloppy in dealing with national security information.
Hillary Clinton will be charged just as Patraeus was charged. In fact, the current talk about Patraeus being demoted retroactively furthers points to Hillary’s upcoming indictment.
Absolutely right!
By all indications, the FBI will recommend Indictment, and the evidence they will present to the DOJ will likely be devastating to Hillary Clinton. I don’t see how the DOJ can possible refuse to indict, considering the outrage that would likely follow in the country’s intelligence agencies. The pressure will simply be too strong. People forget that the evidence that will be put forth, does not come from some Senate Republican Committee. The evidence will come from this country’s top Law Enforcement agency, which has no political axes to grind. The Democratic Party will abandon Hillary. I’m surprise, with the obvious looming crisis, that they haven’t abandon her already…before it’s too late. The FBI figured this one out with their eyes closed, and before they read a singe e-mail: The purpose of the Private Server was to cover up the money laundering and pay to play schemes of the Clinton Foundation. Just follow the money. Now they are almost done putting it all together. What surprises me is how paralyzed the Democrats appear to be in abandoning this obviously sinking ship..
Bill Clinton always chose another woman vs. his wife. Shouldn’t you??
So if I didn’t mean to run the red light I don’t need to pay the fine? Or if I forget to include income on my tax return I don’t need to pay the penalty ? Great news!
Before you consider the missteps of her current campaign, it is truly something, that a large part of the US public wants this woman to lead them, although most of them dont trust her and think she is a liar – based on past sins – white water, travel gate, pardon gate etc. It a serious indictment of the people that they are willing to ignore what they know and and strongly suspect about this woman speaks to a pathology that is so deep in the left/progressive culture.
Paul Craig Roberts says we have to prove intent. Is a drunk driver not guilty because he says I was so drunk I din’t know what I was doing. There is a part of the law that says Implied malice is intent. In other words when you do something that anyone would know is wrong even though you say I didn’t intend to break the law you are still breaking the law. But in this case Hillary intended to break the law. He says drop this inquiry and try to prove they took money for access. well RR went to japan shortly after his term was over and got one million for two speches. Now why would the Japanese care what Regan or Clinton have to say about anything. But if you try to prove this it may be impossible Lets just charge her for the E mail stuff and Roberts can be her defense lawyer He can make his case and the jury will decide
Isn’t this when politicians will claim to be exceptional and above accountability?
Disregarding partisan attacks about the damn emails, would appreciate Mr. Roberts’ view on Brad Hoff’s report (FPJ, 6 Jan 2016) documenting the ouster (assassination) of Gaddafi linked to U.S.-France war profiteering. That deal, “Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention,” reads like a particularly indictable scheme. Other insights available? Thanks.
Ok so the FBI should just investigate violations of laws they feel are “serious.” This guy is basically admitting she broke the law regarding classified information but because one email with a classified North Korean satellite photo is apparently not “important” we should just let her skate on this. What about the soldiers cited earlier who emailed an al qaeda location, shouldn’t he be released? Moreover, it’s highly doubtful the emails sent to the secretary of state were only classified to such an extent everyone knew about them. I agree funneling bribes through the CGI is more serious but it doesn’t mean this isn’t serious and even if it is IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. We can’t leave the FBI or DOJ with the discretion of which laws are imporant or which aren’t. Look at Al Capone certainly murder and rackateering were more serious than his taxes fraud BUT the FBI didn’t say “hey tax fraud is not that serious.” I mean the above article is ludicrous.