Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If you want to take an intellectual exercise and expound on what constitutes a crime and criminal activity that's one thing. When you use that to brand someone absent some standard of evidence that's an entirely different matter.

My only point here is you make it way too easy to turn someone into a criminal.

It's not an intellectual exercise, really... the law, through various codes, plainly defines what is a crime and what are it's elements. It's generally any act of commission or omission in violation of any law that either commands or forbids it, and to which, upon conviction, are prescribed certain penalties including death, imprisonment, fine, removal from office, or disqualification to hold any position of trust, honor, or profit.

Notice that the crime, or criminal wrongdoing, occurs independent of conviction.

As far as branding absent a standard of evidence, well, as someone mentioned, O.J., he must not have engaged in any criminal activity since, apparently, there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. Or was there?

Clinton's case remains to be seen, but she wouldn't be under legal scrutiny unless she were reasonably suspected of at least some form of criminal wrongdoing.

But maybe Clinton has done nothing criminal, instead maybe she is just exceptionally incompetant.