“Criminal Intent”…
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.
(Nov. 10, 2018) — During Friday night’s edition of “
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
