Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Interesting . . . no evidence that she intentionally or willingly broke the law. Does that mean she did, but she just didn't know that she did?
Wikipedia:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
But in Hillary's case, ignorance is merely bliss. Is being unaware that one is breaking a law a positive qualification for the reputedly highest office in the land? Is the lack of proper procedure which leads to the unintentional breaking of a federal law a qualification for the chief law enforcer of the land?
|
You're presuming a law was broken, this is still just speculation. I read a legal paper some months ago though that was very specific that intent is everything in this cases. If not they'd have to indict most of the CIA and DoD.
Hybrid Mode
