The FBI announcement of "finding" more Clinton emails is another opportunity for foolish logic. The FBI has not reported what they read! This is NOT Watergate.
The news media, even Good Morning America, is inflating the importance of this information by the way they present it. The lack of content and facts in the FBI announcement, and the manner of the media coverage would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous to skewing the truth and the election.
The lack of discipline and accurate, precise use of language is creating an issue.
Some people are assuming a crime, assuming evidence, and assuming guilt! In America we need a crime to be committed, evidence, and a verdict to prove a person is guilty of a crime, has done something wrong. America does not indict people for a crime and ask them to prove they are innocent.
The news media seems like they are bending over backwards to be "fair" and, as a result, they are twisting the reality and the truth of the situation. It seems to me the FBI and media want to prove to Donald Trump that they are fair and honest. They have gone too far in fear of being labelled corrupt!
The FBI has NO EVIDENCE the new emails have any nefarious content.
Even seemingly intelleigent people get it wrong as to whether Hillary Clinton deliberately passed on classified information. THERE MUST BE DELIBERATE INTENT!
See this article:
"Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Commit a Crime … and She Should be Charged"
by Chris White | 11:46 am, February 4th, 2016
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-did-commit-a-crime/
Chris relies on Hillary "knowingly" removing classified, and THAT term alone, Chris, makes you wrong. You can't prove guilt or even file charges because your opinion is that Hillary "knowingly," according to case law defining that term, passed on classified information.
Some hold the opposite view from Chris opinion piece:
ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today
By Dan Abrams
Close Follow on Twitter
More from Dan
Feb 1, 2016, 3:19 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
Not stated by Chris, but proof on "knowingly" is difficult. Chris even seems to concede the point in his opinion piece.
Here is the nature of the evidence rules; see:
"(b) Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result."
Best Practices in Proving Specific Intent and Malice. What Can Civil and Criminal Litigators Learn from One Another?
Chad S.C. Stover Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Wilmington, DE
Wrong interpretations of the legal code like this lead to a guilty verdict when no criime was committed. Chris want to lynch Hillary it seems based on his misinterpreting the code. Not to mention Chris seems to be "cherry picking" parts of the ode to fit his argument. The entire code has to be brought to apply for any assessment, not just a portion that fits your argument.
So the true bottom line is whether it can be proven, in a court of law, not through the internet, or in the court of pubic opinion, since we are a nation that abides by the rule of law, that Hillary Clinton had the intent, a term which must be part of proving "knowingly," Chris, to pass on classified information.
To help everyone further understand all that applies, I have attached Chapter 8 of the relevant code to my web site.
