Bottom line: Neither ignorance nor innocent intent are stay-out-of-jail cards for ordinary folks.
========
Let’s connect two articles from last week.
The first is a legal opinion from The Hill:
It’s relatively short and direct – well worth reading.
The essence of the legally supported conclusion:
In letting Hillary off-the-hook, Comey revived two old, tenuous legal defenses: “ignorance of the law” and “no direct evidence of criminal intent”.
Every kid is taught that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse, right?
And, courts have regularly dismissed the need for prosecutors to prove “willfulness”.
If you did it, you did it
Old adage: Do the crime, do the time (or pay the fine).
But, since Comey’s leniency rested on ignorance and willfulness (“no direct evidence of criminal intent”), those defenses are making a comeback.
Here’s a specific case …..
The Homa Files 