Gotta love these Hillary supporters! Backed into a wall and they always reduce arguments to semantics.
First, my point of contention with the original piece was that he narrowly defined election and rigged. Is it true that an election consists more than the voting process. Yes. Is it possible to rig an election. Yes. So we are discussing real experiences and objective outcomes in that scenario. We are not discussing something subjective like beauty or “what is tiresome?” So you are invoking a false analogy.
Now you had shifted the conversation to her emails, and you claimed that they were tiresome. That is completely subjective, as there is no way to confirm the tiresome characteristic of something unlike the ability to use experiences or typology to confirm the definitions of election and rigged. Matter of fact, I even gave examples to the OP to show how his definition was too narrow. You have yet to fortify your opinion, except by a tweet that you claim was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I seriously doubt that, though.
“An argument I’m willing to make is that justice can only be served when the law is deliberately broken,” and, “Which laws did Hillary Rodham Clinton wilfully break, and when?” (emphasis mine)
I think these two quotes are a good indicator of your misunderstanding on the law. Deliberation and will have nothing to do with violation of the law. It may apply to severity of punishment but not simple violation. Try this experiment the next time you get pulled over: “Officer, I didn’t mean to deliberately speed. I wasn’t doing it wilfully. It was an accident.” I promise you are not going to get out of the ticket. This is because of the legal principle Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance is not an excuse under the law.
Moreover case law does not establish law in the way you think it does — another misunderstanding. Case law is nothing more than the reasons given in any case as opined by judges, typically in cases that don’t directly fall under any statute or regulation. Until that case is taken by the Supreme Court and definitively ruled upon, it is not law of the land. So some case law is definitive and has reached the status, some are not, especially on the cases that never make it to the Supreme Court. All these instances of Clinton’s email usage do not fall under case law given the fact that there are clear regulations on this matter, specifically located in The Espionage Act.
What you meant to say is what statute did she violate? That, I can certainly give you:
- 18 USC §793
- 18 USC §1924
- 18 USC §798
- 18 USC §2071
The YouTube video of Hillary’s and Comey’s testimony, from a left leaning source might I add, objectively proves (unless you are going to refute the validity of your own eyes and ears) that she broke the above statutes.
I really have to stop assuming you're intelligent enough to deduce these points if I have to spell it out this basic for you. You are wrong. Be a man and admit it.