Criminal Indifference

"Two words, Mr President: plausible deniability."
--Secretary of Defense Albert Nimziki (Independence Day)

Building on previous comments, Judge Nap remains on the case of Hillary Clinton, namely that the FBI is currently and aggressively building cases against Hillary Clinton for failure to safeguard state secrets and for using her position as secretary of state to advance the financial position of the Clinton Foundation. He believes that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury seek an indictment against Ms Clinton for espionage.

He suspects, based on recent remarks from Clinton, that if an indictment does come that she might plead that she was so technologically inept that she did not know what she was doing when she worked with top secret emails on non-secure platforms. Her case essentially becomes one of plausible deniability.

However, the Judge argues that plausible deniability is not a valid defense in Clinton's situation. Failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government does not need to prove intent. Whether negligence is involved is inconsequential. Plausible deniability in this case would be an admission of negligence and of guilt.

Moreover, when she first become secretary of state, Clinton signed an oath, under penalty of perjury, that she was fully briefed by the FBI on the lawful requirements of keeping state secrets. The obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute and cannot be avoided or evaded by acts of negligence. Such negligence can bring prosecution.

Claims of plausible deniability amounts to a case of criminal indifference here.

As the Judge observes, we will soon learn whether the rule of law still commands some respect in this country.