FBI Director Comey proved to be a consummate bureaucrat, willing to perform as his masters have directed him. The Director following his directions. Thanks to the revelation of W.J. (Bent Willie) Clinton's tete a tete with U.S. Attorney General Loretta "Doan Say Nuffin Bad" Lynch, we knew the fix was in, but some of us - the less cynical Pollyannas among us - thought they would never be quite this obvious.
Consider that for a moment, folks. Does that not demonstrate the disdain in which our own government holds us, that they accept as given that we will not rise up in righteous fury when they absolve each other of such open disregard for the law? The law that we all are expected - forced at gun-point - to obey? Just a few minutes ago, while changing the email address where commenters may reach me (not that I've had more than two or three of those in the life of this obscure little blog), I saw a place to list my favorite movies. I thought about my favorite Seagal movie, Above The Law (his first, and one of the few I feel was really well done). I didn't list it because it was hopelessly optimistic, the premise being that we could call to task a federal agency (actually a rogue supervisor within the CIA) for completely ignoring written law as well as the nearly 3000 year old Judeo-Christian (just "Judeo" at first) moral code, including "Thou shalt not murder".
So, here we find ourselves faced with another in a long train of abuses by our out-of-control federal government, a member of the elite being permitted to slide on egregious violations of federal law, spouting provable lies, and displaying complete arrogance, by acting as if she possessed a lily-white soul, without the intent to commit the crimes of which she is so obviously guilty. Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, as my deceased father would have said.
It used to be a matter of routine jurisprudence, that intent was required along with a deliberate act in order to be judged guilty of a violation of the law. It was known as "mens rea", and without it, a person could not be convicted of a crime. This principle of law existed for hundreds of years, but at some point in our immediate past - within the last fifty years or so? - the courts threw it out, and began ordering juries to convict even in the absence of intent to do wrong.
Like David Olofson, who was convicted and sent to prison for possessing a semi-automatic rifle that was broken and would occasionally fire more than one round of ammunition when the trigger was pulled only once. Even though the BATFE, the prosecutor, the judge, and everyone in the jury knew it was broken. They were ordered by the judge (illegally, but what the hell) to ignore the fact that it was broken, and that they were required to convict if the rifle did indeed fire more than one round at any time the trigger was depressed only once. The jury was never advised that intent of wrong-doing was a necessary part of the law, as the courts have, over the years, created new "law", but establishing the precedent that mens rea was no longer required in order to convict a person of committing a crime.
So. Fast-forward to the Clinton email case, and FBI Director Comey stating that Clinton had no intent to break the law when she - knowingly - violated federal law concerning classified documents and the use of private servers (she used more than one) to conduct government business (let alone classified government business). We are being slapped in the face again with the knowledge that the elite - at least those on the Left - are judged by different criteria than the rest of us, the peasants. The law does not apply to our "masters", only to us - slaves of the federal government rather than the masters of federal government, as the Constitution was written to make the case.
Further, think back to the Martha Stewart case: she was not convicted of the insider trading she was arrested for, and for which they attempted to imprison her. She was convicted - and made a felon - for lying to a federal officer. As others have said many times, isn't it interesting that we can go to prison for lying to the federal government, but when they lie, it is simply called "politics". Proof positive that we have actually been WROL for a long time now. The Left has simply become more blatant about it.
Before I close, ask yourself this: if they are not bound by law, why should we be? If the FBI, the IRS, the EPA and other government bureaucracies can deprive us of life and liberty at whim - with regulations, let alone written, codified law - should we not be able to return the favor? Wouldn't it be interesting to know the work addresses of the nearest U.S. Attorneys, FBI, IRS, EPA, etc, so that you could at some point voice your concerns directly to them? After all, Santa Claus makes a list, doesn't he?
