"Criminal intent": What WE need to understand

In the very first year of law school, I had 3 courses:  Criminal Law, Tort Law and Contract Law.  (Torts have to do with civil wrongs with respect to legal duties that one person or entity owes to another - such as the failure of a business to maintain a safe environment for customers.)

Let's forget, for the moment, that INTENT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT in at least two statutes that apply to Hillary Clinton.  Apparently the FBI decided a long time ago to rewrite these statutes without our knowing it.

But even so, a first-year law student could have easily dealt with the element of intent in the case of Hillary Clinton.  In fact, if they could not, they would probably fail the course.

First, criminal intent is not "evil intent", although one with criminal intent may indeed also have an evil intent.  It is not necessary that anyone prove that the actor had any specific result in mind - i.e., revealing state secrets to the enemy.  Very simply, criminal intent is nothing more or less than THE DELIBERATE (as opposed to accidental) COMMISSION OF ACTS THAT ARE DEFINED IN THE LAW AS A CRIME (or the omission of acts which are commanded by the law - such as reporting a traffic accident).

If a crime is defined in statute as comprised of the commission of certain acts, AND IF YOU INTENTIONALLY PERFORM THOSE ACTS, YOU DO SO WITH CRIMINAL INTENT.  All criminal intent means is the INTENT to perform ACTS WHICH ARE CRIMINAL.

We're not talking about a Snidely Whiplash sneer or a Moriarty type of plot, got that? 

It's true:  Even ignorance of the law is no (legal) excuse.  Try telling the IRS that you didn't know you had to file a tax return.

Second, criminal intent is rarely if ever shown or proven by direct evidence.  Criminals are disinclined to publish their intent to the newspapers.  "Dear Editor:  I'm going to run over Bob Smith tomorrow with the intent of killing him."

Juries are instructed that they are permitted to INFER OR ASSUME INTENT by a showing of other direct evidence, such as:

1.  A repetitive pattern of the behavior made criminal by statute.

2.  Attempts to conceal such behavior.

3.  Destruction of evidence that would tend to show such behavior.

4.  Lying about one's participation in such behavior.

5.  Statements related to the performance of prohibited behaviors.

Hillary Clinton's criminal intent (as defined above!) can be and indeed would be unerringly inferred by any GRAND JURY, to whom this case should have been referred.

As Paul Harvey would have said..."and now you know the rest of the story."

Hillary Clinton committed federal crimes with full intention of performing the acts that the law prohibits, and then lied about doing so, destroyed evidence so even the FBI could not recover it, and the case is an absolute slam-dunk.  A green first-year prosecutor could win it.

The "Comey Decision" is not only an insult to anyone who understands the most fundamental concepts of criminal law, it is an incredibly dangerous precedent with respect to the future behavior of anyone who decides that they can maintain sensitive government information in an environment where such information is not protected.

Of course, there are, sadly, liberals who don't care about any of ths and who would vote for Cliinton if she were shown on video murdering 20 small children.  What she did was actually far worse than that, and  I hope that you will do some serious soul-searching regarding your priorities.  Are you devoted to this nation, or is your first concern the party?