Or, it could further divide the country.
Intent does matter. I got "interviewed" in a circumstance when a classified document I created had been put into normal interoffice hardcopy mail in a "holey joe" envelope. When it was determined that it was actually our office clerk-typist who'd done that, they lost interest in me. The clerk-typist got his hand slapped, but went on to have a decent career, retired, and I still talk to him now and then on Facebook.
Is that an excuse not to proceed? Because some people, like yourself, are getting upset about this?
There are three reasons to prosecute. As a deterrent, as a punishment and to protect us from the guilty person (assuming he or she is found guilty). I doubt whether the third applies in this case. But the first two definitely do.
I'm sure the authorities will consider your opinion.
For some reason, he lived in the motel instead of an apartment. That already sounds a little sus to me.
No, murder is directly what we're trying to prevent with laws against murder.
Hmmm... You say the rules are important. Then you suggest that me, Landon Caeli, and not Donald Trump, or the indictment, are bent out of shape?
OK...a bridge too far perhaps. You've always been polite to me - I should reciprocate. My apologies. Post edited.
I think you have that the wrong way around. We are all concerned, in the first instance, with people mishandling classified information. Because, in the second instance, it may fall into the wrong hands. Trump is being accused of the first. Because of the second.
Yes, hence it's a 'preventative' law. It's a law put into place, to prevent a "potential", undesirable result (enemies of the state gaining access to our secrets).
I'm a little different than most. I believe in personal accountability, over blanket laws.
I did. The mental gymnastics it took even to try to align those completely different concepts has given me a headache. How you can present it as an argument is completely and utterly beyond my comprehension.
