Disturbing Precedent

Yes, it’s taken me a full day to recover from my shock and dismay about James Comey’s the nonsensical statements yesterday that’s sent the country into yet another tizzy. I have to admit, not knowing him on any personal level, many of his friends and colleagues are people I’ve long held in high esteem. He has been described as a true advocate of the Law. A hard-nosed, no nonsense guy who brings criminal to bear for their criminality.

Therefore, as you can imagine, I was more than shocked after his set-up for recommendations that turned bad when he stated no charges would be filed against Hillary Clinton for her grossly negligent handling of our State secrets.

Was it really a good day for Hillary Clinton?

When one really examines his verb, he damned Clinton; showing her as incompetent, unreliable and unethical as well as extremely careless (which is legal synonymous with gross negligence — written verbatim in the laws she broke!) For those purposes, he eviscerated her character and proved her unfit for the office as President of the United States. Let’s face it, now, if she were to apply for a file clerk job at the DOJ, she couldn’t gain security clearance because of what he read from his report. How can a person be a president without being able to have security clearance?


What I saw beyond the obvious cover of Clinton Corruption – once again – was what this conclusion said to criminal defense lawyers everywhere. What did it mean to them and our court systems throughout the country. Is INTENT the new black dress of jurisprudence? A system succinctly explained by Aristotle as being Reason free of Passion?

One has to think of the various motions being filed yesterday at noon to every court across the country as enterprising young (and old) lawyers can see this an opportunity to exonerate clients based on the FBI’s “new deal” in evidence gathering and interpretation. If I were a criminal defense lawyer, I’d be directing my staff to generate said motions a mile a minute.

Some may have even seen my scenarios of possible court hearings with lawyers claiming dismissals simply because intent was not proven by the State and/or Law Enforcement. As a person of law and order, I find them appalling but as a person seeing Comey’s terms in a legal sense, I can see how his words have very bad repercussions for everyone in society. Yesterday, he basically fathered the Clinton Defense where if Law Enforcement can’t find intent then if a law is broken, it’s not subject to accountability. After all, who knows a defendant that doesn’t either deny their culpability or apologize for their actions if they do admit to their deed?

No doubt some lawyers will capitalize or have clients calling them from county, asking for such a motion to be filed. And rightly so. The Clinton Defense has now established a precedence that we are all above the law as long as intent is absent from the inferences painted by evidentiary support.

So what does that mean in the big picture?

Well, if Jane Doe runs a stoplight trying to pick up her groceries after work and kills a child, her intent was not to kill. She didn’t get in her car and say, “I’m going to run over innocent children.” No! Now with what Comey said yesterday about lack of intent in Clinton’s illegal private server investigation, it brings the following questions.


Should she be adjudicated? Should charges be filed for a Grand Jury to convene to ascertain whether indictment goes forward? Well, James Comey said NO and as head of the FBI, the overlords of all investigations in the land, that means something!


When will people in DC realize their actions (or lack thereof) have serious consequences. Killing our criminal justice system to protect a criminal is not just insane, it’s suicidal.


While you may find these above defenses are indefensible to all logical thinking people, they are reality should State Attorneys and Law Enforcement be tasked to not only providing physical evidence and eye witness testimonies, but prove the intents of perpetrators. One can never really see into the eaves of another person’s psyche — very rarely can a prosecutor point to specifics in motive and intent in their prosecutorial arguments other than the evidence dictates as such. Thus, making this a precursor for indictment is impossible to prove. Certainly, it will empty out our state penitentiaries but those repeat offenders can continue to walk among us unfettered.

During last night’s barrage of commentary, word on the beat tells us Comey now will have to answer to Congress for his actions yesterday. At Paul Ryan’s insistence, Jason Chaffetz has already convened a committee and scheduled the hearing to begin Thursday at 10am on the Hill. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also being scheduled for some time next week. Both will be called to task for their own “gross negligence” in handling this matter.

Now, knowing that I’m not a fan of our Speaker, I can say without hesitation, this is a rare moment where he and I actually agree that some accountability needs to occur from both the DOJ and FBI!

In the meantime, it looks like the court system officers, lawyers and defendants will be busy capitalizing on this momentary lapse of reason and judgment in our Judicial System’s history.

Furthermore, Comey has now given a way for Donald Trump to also prove his opponent unfit for the presidency!

Seriously – you can’t make this stuff up.

Note: Following video is Comey’s testimony before Congress, 3 days later.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Recommended For You