Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Profiles in Cowardice
Back in 1919, William Butler Yeats wrote a poem called “The Second Coming,” which began with the following verses:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The Falcon cannot hear the falconer.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I think of this poem often. I thought of it when John Roberts turned himself into the legal equivalent of a pretzel in a cowardly attempt to dodge the fact that Obamacare was, on the face of it, unconstitutional. I thought of it later while sitting in a hotel room in Indianapolis as Mike Pence collapsed when Tim Cooke of Apple called him after the Indiana Legislature passed a facsimile of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I thought of it when Nathan Deal vetoed an act passed by the Georgia Legislature specifying that bathrooms be allocated in that state by sex. And I thought of it today when James Comey, Director of the FBI, recommended that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for gross negligence for doing all of her business as Secretary of State via an email server lodged in her home, pleading that the poor girl had not intended harm.
We, too, live in a time when the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity. It has been ugly the last eight years, and it is going to be uglier still.
Published in Law
[deleted by author]
Alas, I agree.
Brings to mind, Prof. Rahe, the discussions we’ve had on ricochet about the lack of good leaders, about our missing the type of men who led this country through a revolution and wrote a constitution.
All I can say is, that if we wanted them, we would have them. We are really going to see if constitutional government can survive an age of low, despicable and dishonest men.
Of course I am assuming that we still have such a government. I’ve always followed politics closely, and lately have begun to wonder why I waste my time.
tim
Thirty pieces of silver sounds about right…
You and all the wanna be lawyers can have a go at it. But, the law is more than the statute. Mens rea is required even in gross negligence, if not for the crime, for the deed that leads to the crime (you speed recklessly, kill someone, but the car’s faulty speed control is the reason, no intent). I am not saying she did not have intent, I am saying it is hard to demonstrate. Andrew McCarthy points out that it is not necessary, but used to distract. Well circumstantial evidence can add up to intent, but as Comey pointed out, it takes a lot of such evidence and that test may not have been met,… I don’t defend it, only understand a little bit about prosecuting. It is not all Perry Mason, courage, etc. Its the law.
I will sleep well. And so will Director Comey and those who prosecute these cases. They knew that a prosecution was unlikely to succeed and she was skewered by his words and findings. This may actually be better than a prosecution that acquits her later.
Stay focused on the Clinton Foundation.
I believe Trump would be a terrible, terrible president. But I am incandescently angry right now. If the election were today, I just might pull the lever for Trump.
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. Smells like…. victory.
James M,
So why didn’t Comey stay focused on the Clinton Foundation? Because then he would have a complete and airtight case with all the intent anyone could ask for.
Comey didn’t have the guts to take her down. Yes, just as Roberts didn’t have the guts to lance Obamacare.
Washington’s Hollow Men
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion.
— T. S. Eliot
Tonight is not the night for fig leaf pseudo-pragmatics.
Regards,
Jim
I am truly perplexed by this change of heart. We have learned nothing new today about Mrs. Clinton’s behavior or culpability. Instead, we only have learned of the fecklessness of the current administration. Why does this incline one to vote for Mr. Trump against Mrs. Clinton? She is the same person today that she was yesterday, and we knew that. If NeverTrump on July 4, then NeverTrump on July 5.
To quote a famous pol, at this point what difference does it* make?
*Comey’s announcement
Hear Hear!
I don’t think it would be that hard to demonstrate if Hillary’s complete history of e-mail experience, going back to her defiance of Judge Royce Lamberth’s orders during her first administration, is part of the evidence.
Here’s a thought: force Trump to name a rock-ribbed Conservative as his running mate and then simply impeach the SOB! If nothing else, it would be amusing to watch all the Dems rush to his defense.
This continues to be wrong, as in the other thread where you lay out the same argument. Showing intent is not required for an indictment for Title 18, Section 793. Perhaps in a trial it might play some part, but this was open and shut with respect to the statute.
If intent is so important for Section 793, why are there other statutes on the books that specifically address intent to harm the US when engaging in similar activity? Read McCarthy again. This law is on the books for this situation, largely because occupying the office carries special privileges – and special obligations.
If, with no intent to harm the country, HC gave classified information to a close friend who had no security clearance, is that gross negligence? What if the friend accidentally or otherwise leaks the info? Is this not in effect exactly what she did by maintaining a personal email server with little security? Has not harm been done, or is this law on the books for no practical purpose since “gross negligence” is so difficult to prove in your view?
Even Patraeus wasn’t trying to harm the country. How was he prosecuted, in your view of this statute?
The fact that people are arguing about “intent to harm the country” shows that Comey/Clinton successfully planted their strawman. Republicans are falling for it, so they win. But that’s not the intent to be concerned about. The intent that needs to be established was the intent to evade accountability and to evade the laws intended to make our government more transparent.
But this has nothing to do with the statute involved in the investigation. Comey hung his non-prosecution hat on intent even though it’s not required so it has to be scrutinized and rebutted. I haven’t heard of an attempt to prosecute “accountability evasion” as yet with the email thing. Straw man or not, this whole episode has harmed the country and how the laws are applied inequitably – and why we must sweat the small stuff or none of these criminals will see justice in this life.
But I’ll bet the statute isn’t about intent to harm the country, either. Is it?
Subject to the requirements of the service.
One of the great things about this presidential election is that each candidate speaks the truth about the other. There is no need to make stuff up.
Well, that’s certainly an optimistic reading of the situation.
Except that that truth is quite damning.
Because today we have the absolute proof that every aspect of Washington is corrupted, and will get worse if Hillary is elected.
Any doubt that we could depend on the “system” to reign in her corruption is gone.
Amen.
O.K. Never Trumpers consider this. Voting for the Donald has now become necessary regardless of what you think about him. Hillary et. al.’s Corruption on this scale must be swept away and the only way to do it under these circumstances is to vote against Hillary,Obama, Lynch, and the Democrats and MSM that provide the Clintons cover.
The Progressive Left has conviction – the Conservatives have lost it – there lies the problem- we need to take a lesson from the Brits here.
Electing Trump would be our very own Gunpowder Plot. Blowing up the system—Constitution, checks and balances, consent of the governed, and all—is probably a bad idea. But I’m almost there.
There is a “Hail Mary pass” that can save us from a Trump v. Clinton race. The delegates at the Republican Convention can do their duty to the country and to the party by rejecting Donald Trump as a candidate.
His comments this week in praise of Saddam Hussein, totally in tune with his comments praising the perpetrators of the Tianenmen Square Massacre and his “Truther” accusations of George W. Bush, all show a defect in judgment and character that is disqualifying.
Since winning the Indiana primary in May, Trump has demonstrated incompetence as a general election candidate. His fundraising has been negligible. He has done nothing to establish a ground game. Today he was quoted online as asserting that he can win the election without the support of the Republican party base.
The members of the Republican party base who are delegates to the convention need to stand up and do the right thing. That starts by voting against Trump. Finding a replacement candidate will be difficult but it is better than signing on for the suicide mission that the Trump candidacy is turning into.
And then he had to open his mouth. Worst. Candidate. Ever.