Trey Gowdy, and the LAW in General:

In watching the skillful manipulation [avoidance] of the truth by James Comey, and the tip-toeing around verbiage intended to prevent the Truth from being revealed… It occurs to me to say the following:

Law is not about Truth, it is about manipulation of Truth to advantage the guilty by people lacking Conscience.

The ex-FBI Director ignored multiple instances of criminal activity of Hillary Clinton and in its place he used the term “Intent”.  As though “Intent” was something we should be in awe regarding… although the term “Intent” is irrelevant, not factual nor real.

The FACT is… an action has consequences. The Law [as administered by Comey] is not based on facts, but on his ability to find a way to ignore and deny facts, or interfere in administering the “law” by issuing get out of jail free cards to all the guilty people helping Hillary ignore the law.

In other words, every action has consequences, but the normal person has no way of “knowing” what consequences will occur when he or she engages in an action?  And, when the “LAW” is not based on the consequences of an action, but is arbitrarily based on what a person “INTENDED” his or her action to be… then the LAW is saying that a person must be excused from all RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS IF… the consequences of his/her action  are contrary to what he/she wants those consequences to be?

My question is this:   In what way is “INTENTION” more important that CONSEQUENCES relative to an action?  If a person lacks Conscience, and can therefore easily lie, then the LAW says that such a person must not be held RESPONSIBLE for his or her actions… if that person’s attorney says that he/she did not INTEND for the CONSEQUENCES of his/her action to be what they were?

That, to me, is insane, and has virtually nothing to do with Truth, or Reality! Hillary engaged in actions that were [in themselves] illegal.  And she signed an oath to not do what she did.  How is such action not illegal? What kind of nonsense is Comey engaged in when he uses the term “INTENT” to excuse Hillary’s illegal actions?

A man was driving 85 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour area, and he ran over an old lady.  But he did not “INTEND” to run over the old lady, therefore he is not guilty of driving 85 miles an hour?  That is precisely what Comey is telling us about Hillary and her multiple crimes.  She did not “INTEND” to commit a crime, therefore her crimes are not really crimes.

Sorry, Trey Gowdy, when you allow a liar like Comey to manipulate common sense by lies, deception, and assuming we citizens are as ignorant as Congress is regarding RESPONSIBILITY for one’s actions… irrespective of “INTENT”… I, for one, no longer have any faith in the Law, nor in those in government.

“INTENT” is simply a means by which the elite avoid RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, aided by crooked [and godless] attorneys.  A pox on all who lie for a living.

Brother James