Despite the seeming diverting of all the power of the federal government in order to remove any responsibility from Hillary Clinton for actions that were admittedly criminal, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is on a mission to fight that power.
As a part of his overall question to “Hold Hillary Accountable,” Senator Paul made a comment to reporters, calling on the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee to be subjected to the full range of legal ramifications for her actions, which threatened the national security of the United States.
In response to a question about FBI Director James Comey’s call for Clinton to be set scot free, unpunished for her use of personal e-mail servers to transmit classified documents — an act in violation of federal law — Paul said, “I think an indictment would be a good idea, followed by a prison sentence.”
As The New American reported on July 14, Senator Paul has launched a drive to gather signatures on a petition aimed at persuading officials at the Department of Justice to apply the laws of this country to Hillary Clinton, the way they would be to any other citizen.
“If you still believe that no American — even a Clinton — should be exempt from our justice system, sign the petition demanding that Hillary Clinton be held accountable for all her violations,” Paul writes, explaining the purpose of the petition.
“There should not be a different set of rules for Hillary and people like us,” he adds.
Predictably, lawyers for Clinton are seeking to have their boss placed permanently beyond the reach of congressmen or the courts. As reported by the Washington Post:
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton asked a federal judge Monday not to order her to testify about her private email server, saying that any “cluelessness or negligence” by State Department officials about how she managed work-related emails did not equate to evidence that she intended to thwart public records laws. [Emphasis added.]
As an attorney, I have a problem with my fellow lawyers’ language in defense of their client.
Negligence, as defined in the law, is simply the failure of a person to meet a standard of care that a reasonable person would meet in the same or similar circumstances.
By its very definition, negligence has nothing at all to do with intent.
Therefore, Clinton’s attorneys’ assertion that her lack of intent should justify placing her beyond accountability for any “negligence” regarding her handling of classified material using a personal e-mail account is, as we say in the law, irrelevant.
Look at it this way: If Driver A runs a stop sign and hits Driver B's car, causing damages, then Driver A will be held accountable for the reparation of Driver B's damages, provided Driver A is found to have acted without due care (negligently) in the running of the stop sign.
No attorney worth his commission would try to excuse Driver A's negligence by pointing out that he didn’t intend to crash into the other car!
That is exactly the argument being made by Hillary Clinton’s white stocking legal team, however.
Intent is irrelevant in cases of negligence when it comes to driving in a way that could harm another person, and it should be equally irrelevant in cases of transmitting classified material in such a way that could harm the national security of the United States.
Rand Paul’s efforts, therefore, are on sound legal and moral footing. But will that fact make any difference in whether Hillary is held accountable? That’s another story.