YOU BUILT THAT: Guess Who’s Invoking the Clinton Defense?

Published on August 18, 2016

They said it could never happen. But look who’s using the newly-minted Clinton Defense to avoid jail time now? (The logic even makes sense, in a sick sort of way.)

You’ve heard of the Butterfly Effect? One action can have far-reaching effects that couldn’t POSSIBLY predicted?

Yeah, we’ll, this isn’t like that. Because this was COMPLETELY predictable. And it didn’t take long.

The FBI directer knew Hillary had misused classified information. He said as much when asked by Trey Gowdy. But he gave Hillary an “out”.

He introduced the question of ‘intent’… contrary to all precedent. And now, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Lawyers have already begun to use the “Clinton Defense”. It’s not illegal if HILLARY does it… so why should I be punished.

For example:

A Navy sailor facing the possibility of years in prison for taking a handful of classified photos inside a nuclear submarine is making a bid for leniency by citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over classified information authorities say was found in her private email account.

Found guilty of a crime? Check.

Waiting for a prison sentence? Check.

Looking to dodge it? Check. You can see where this is going…

“Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hilary [sic] Clinton…has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier,” Hogan wrote. He noted that FBI Director James Comey said 110 emails in 52 email chains in Clinton’s account contained information deemed classified at the time, including eight chains with “top secret” information and 36 with “secret” information.

“In our case, Mr. Saucier possessed six (6) photographs classified as ‘confidential/restricted,’ far less than Clinton’s 110 emails,” Hogan wrote. “It will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”
Read more: Politico

Where does this come from?

Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on procedures for handling classified documents and government records and ignored those briefings, and as she repeatedly lied publicly to cover her actions, there was plenty of evidence to convince a jury that she knew she was acting improperly. That would be enough for most “reasonable prosecutors.”

Why is this important? Well the next time someone makes a false statement to a bank, or someone they are soliciting by mail, or by email, or a gun dealer, or saws off a gun barrel or converts a single fire to an automatic, uses a weapon in technical violation of myriad laws and regulations, inappropriately effects interstate commerce in countless ways or commits anyone of a host of other major white collar federal crimes, remember that the logical defense will now be, “Even if I suspected it was probably wrong, I did not know I was violating a specific federal law.”

As was the case with Hillary, because you cannot establish that I ‘willfully’ violated a known federal law ,you cannot proceed.” Proving this mental state would obviously be almost an impossible burden in many cases.
Read more: The Hill

Share if an honest justice system would have already indicted Hillary