He has lied more than once under oath when saying that intent is needed to prosecute.
He also didn't reopen the email mess on Hillary. He reopened it because of the Wiener scandal. He does not get to hide behind right or wrong on that one. He was bound by law to investigate.
Really? then why is that sailor serving out his prison sentence?
And, why is it you can be fined/sent to jail for having an eagle part in your possession? Intent and/or how you acquired the feather, or whatever, is irrelevant. The law says one cannot have on his/her person any part of an eagle (unless you're a member of a federally recognized Native American tribe)....period. There is no intent component to that law.
There are other laws with no intent component....such as negligence. If I shoot a gun into the air and the bullet strikes and kills someone a mile away, I am guilty. My defense of "well, I had no intention of that bullet striking that person, or any person" won't work.
But! I am no lawyer, and didn't play one on TV, so I will consult with a criminal attorney I know. She has worked in criminal defense and for the state AG's office.
Integrity has nothing to do with judgement.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
You can have poor judgement and still be a man of integrity. We agree on that. They are doing more than asking whether he made a mistake. They are asking if he did it intentionally thereby questioning his integrity.
It is wrongful prosecution if you bring a case where you don't believe the case is supported by facts and the law.
Sure states/fed government have lost cases where they failed to prove it. But they should have only brought those cases if they believed the evidence supported a conviction.
The sailor intentionally covered it up. It is not the crime, but the cover up that gets people in these kind of cases.
Yeah, you are not a lawyer. Criminal law varies from state to state, but there is still an intent requirement to negligent/involuntary homicide, it is just not a "specific intent" crime (where one intends the consequence of their action).
So, back to the beginning...
What gives him the authority to decided intent or not? That's what the other FBI agents are upset with him about. They made a case and he alone decided there was no intent.
It's also very obvious that she did not care to carry out the oath she had sworn to uphold, but claimed ignorance of the law. She knew, Bill knew, the AG knew, and Comey knew.
She knew "what"?
Which specific crime do you think she committed - the intent requirement depends on what you would have charged her with.
It is reportedly unusual for the FBI to end an investigation without at least informing the DOJ ahead of time but it has been reported (though Comey has yet to say on an official record), that he decided to do this because there werenfake reports that would compromise the DOJ if he didn't decide on his own, and they didn't want to have to rebut the fake reports because it would compromise source and methods. I am sure he will be asked about it.