This may seem a little beside the current news, but Hillary Clinton is being investigated more thoroughly at the present time than at any time in the past.
After a long list of Hillary’s breaking of the laws of the State Department, Comey said that he could find no intent to do harm so that was summarily dismissed.
However, there are things that he never brought to our attention so I would like to compare a couple of important standards.
If we were to look into the life of a doctor who makes his/her living as a surgeon, we would expect him to stay within the rules of the medical profession and be diligent in protecting the interest of the patient by educating himself in the protocol and procedures of each operation.
Anything less might be considered criminal. If he failed to address these issues, left details unattended with possible dire results and dismissed such shoddiness as due to his ignorance of the infraction, should he be exonerated because he had intended no harm?
Perhaps no harm had ensued at the time, but the negligence may not be immediately seen.
Should he, after all infractions have been addressed, have them dismissed because of a lack of intent to do harm.
Such is the case concerning former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton.
Did the fact that her intentions were not to harm the country release her from the necessity of following protocol, of advising herself of the procedures and protecting the interest of those she was serving?
If the residue of her actions lay open for foreign agents scrutiny, should the possibility of damaging actions on their part be overlooked because she had no such intent?
Her intent was not considered to have been to help the enemy, but evidence was produced that she knew she was not following the law binding procedures.
Is that not considered criminal when the lives of the people of this country are at stake?
Do good intentions release anyone from obligations? If so, when does responsibility play a part in our or anyone’s actions?
Sincerely, Norma Christian Raymondville
