The intent of criminal intent; or not

Go ahead, make my…

There’s a fabulous conversation going on over at Conservative Treehouse today on a topic near and dear to millions of we Constitutionalist Patriots, and that is the topic of ‘the intent’ in one’s behavior; its relevance in determining right from wrong in terms of legality; and the regularity with which certain creative elitist progenitors use it as yet another form of ‘pleading the 5th’ in escaping what normally would put most of us in clink for an eternity.

For instance, imagine for a minute that we ‘Deplorables’ wind up having to defend ourselves to prove our innocence, as yours truly had to do a few years ago with an IRS curmudgeon sitting across a desk from me. My heartfelt plea in support of my not ever wishing to see my family tossed out onto the street because of my supposed malfeasance – ie “I didn’t mean to” or “that wasn’t my intent” or “no one ever told me” – mattered not one iota in my attempt to placate the stern-faced government apparatchik in clearing things up.


As ‘sundance’ expresses it in his opener to the topic:

If you pause for a few minutes and look at every recent headline, and the story therein that delivers frustration … I mean really elevate and look at the bigger issue inside each of the examples … there’s a connective thread surrounding a shift in law-and-order to focus on “criminal intent.”

“Intent”, not consequence, is now the larger shield being applied toward excusing the action of people within institutions of government and society.

Hillary Clinton was not guilty, because James Comey said they couldn’t prove intent. Recent DOJ releases highlighting: “declined to prosecute” all surround intent.  Illegal alien entry, and accountability for fraud, all downplayed because there’s no proof of intent.

In the larger picture, the focus on intent -a specific decision made within the administration of justice- has become a shield against consequence.

It was a “mistake”…. he/she/it made “a poor decision” etc.  A pattern of obfuscation downplaying consequence and allowing those decision-makers charged with delivering accountability to withdraw or apply the rules of law based on their individual overlay of ‘intent’.

That shift is factually visible everywhere now.

Read to completion in link down below…

Needless to say, the comments thread is one of intense knowledge and personification on the subject, since most of the Conservative Treehouse followers are of a particularly higher IQ than normal.

For instance, commenter hashtag ‘Curt’ expresses it thus:

I was in law enforcement in California for 40 years. Most criminal statutes have a specific intent requirement. If one enters a home or business with the intent to commit theft, that is the definition of burglary. If you catch the perpetrator with the stolen property leaving the building, ‘intent’ is automatically affixed if it can be shown this was not a simple theft. Burglary is charged. Not simple theft.

The federal statutes that Hillary violated, mishandling of classified material, requires NO intent. NONE. The young sailor taking photos aboard a submarine had no intent to commit any crime. The mere fact that he took those photos is a criminal act no matter what his state of mind. The same applies to Hillary. This is not rocket science.[end]

The self-appointed authorities, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Holder, Loretta Lynch, Mueller, Hillary Rob’em, and yes, all the way up to Obama etc., have convoluted the written federal statutes to suit their own agenda(s). When Comey invoked ‘the intent’ during his famous (‘infamous?’) news conference about Hillary Rob’em’s emails and her mishandling of intelligence, most of us likely fell out of our chairs – yours truly, for one, couldn’t believe what I’d just witnessed!

To cut to the chase, ‘sundance’ is right on topic here. More and more, We the People are seeing ‘the intent’ (or more specifically, the lack of) as reason for not prosecuting certain (mmmm – ‘personages’). Either it isn’t required or ‘intent’ is used as an excuse to NOT prosecute.

Using the current criteria, it would appear that any investigating agency is allowed the freedom to charge one person for the same crime that another person gets to skate on. ‘The intent’ is obvious and assumed when the crime is detected and investigated. Someone goes into the bank with a gun and robs the bank. How can it be said there was NO intent? So then it goes to a jury for determination, which generally ends up going any which way.

On a final note, in the Clinton email affair, the actual intent to violate the law was provable. Classified documents were moved from a government-classified network to a government-unclassified system. They were then edited to remove classifications, then forwarded to a private email system.

Every step of that process proved ‘intent’. She’s a criminal and should be in jail, without any question.

The much bigger question is why isn’t she?

Time for today’s MAGA Pill – President Donald J. Trump – MAGA!


See full discussion at Conservative Treehouse

Also author and psychologist Stanton Samenow: Inside the Criminal Mind

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.