When I was reading this blog post about the Marines at Haditha being cleared (sort of--you'll see what I mean when you read the post), this phrase jumped off the screen at me:

"We can't say those guys didn't commit a crime," said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. "We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute."

That statement could have been about Bill and Hillary Clinton, without changing a word. Bob Ray's report didn't clear them, contrary to popular media (and Democrat) myth.

And no, it's not old news. She's running for president, and seems likely to be the Democrat nominee. And "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle for the courtroom, not for public opinion.

That goes for about everybody charged with a crime, regardless of whether or not they even go to court. It means that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction. The defense wins a trial when the judge or jury determines "not guilty", not "innocent". Which in our judicial system is good enough.

The Duke lacrosse players are the only ones that I can remember recently actually being called innocent.

The connection with Clinton? In your mind, not mine I guess.

That goes for about everybody charged with a crime, regardless of whether or not they even go to court. It means that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

No, there are degrees, and it's often a matter of prosecutorial discretion (which it was in fact in the Clinton case). In some cases, investigation turns up no evidence at all. In others, there's a lot, but not enough, in the mind of a prosecutor, to provide enough assurance of a conviction to take it to trial. If you read Ray's report, it's quite clear that the latter was the case.

And in fact, had it been someone other than the Clintons, most prosecutors would likely have indicted based on the evidence in Ray's report. But the situation was such that he didn't want to set off a political firestorm, when the chances of getting a hung jury were so high (as happened in the case of Susan MacDougal). There are simply too many people in the potential jury pool who could be counted on to vote "not guilty," regardless of the evidence.

Wait a minute...of what is Hillary Clinton guilty?

Legally? Nothing, obviously.

Are you asking what she could have been indicted for, based on Ray's report? Did you read it?

No, there are degrees, …

There may be degrees about prosecutorial discretion. But that, in the end, is still a binary decision. Go to trial, or don't. And if something does go to trial, it's either not guilty, or guilty. A hung jury is a special case, and it's still not a guilty.

In Clinton's case, a deal was made. Deals are made every day in such cases.

I still see no direct link to Clinton.

And I'm with Carl, the Hilary connection is…?

I'm certainly not going to be voting for Hilary. And there isn't a Republican that I can see voting for. And who knows what third party we'll get in Florida.

There may be degrees about prosecutorial discretion.

No, there are also degrees of evidentiary state. As I said, if it had been someone few people had heard of, or adulated, it would have been a slam dunk indictment (or rather, several indictments).

Are you asking what she could have been indicted for, based on Ray's report?

Of course not. Why should I give a weak piss what a bunch of lawyers think about Hillary's precise legal status? To quote Shakespeare, the law is an ass. It has no obvious connection to the morality and character of its quondam or would-be targets.

What I care about is of what she might be guilty in the true and not technical sense of the word: what has she done that is bad, wicked, inconsiderate, stupid, or careless? What has she done that suggests she lacks the character one might reasonably require in a President?

I know her policy preferences, and that's good enough for me to vote against her. She likes socialized medicine, and I'd sooner implement Sharia law across the United States.

But knowing she has different positive values than I is not the same as knowing she is wicked.

So...? What's she done? Sins of commission, that is. Standing by while Bill Clinton spooged all over the Constitution (or even abetting him) is something of which fully half the country is guilty. Nor do I give even a tenth of a damn who she takes money from. The laws on campaign finance are excellent evidence supporting Shakespeare's opinion, vide supra, as well as P. T. Barnum's comment on what kind of voter is born every minute, and I couldn't care less whether candidates follow them or not.

Did you read it?

Of course not. I read the drivel of lawyers when I have to, not otherwise. I have a limited supply of aspirin handy, and my dentist has told me to stop grinding my teeth.

...given that action taken in combat is often given immunity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Says who? Unlike the "real world" where different states have different rules concerning capitol crime, the U.S. Military has just one set. Worldwide, regardless of the branch of service you live and die by the UCMJ.

Capitol crimes in the military can carry the death penalty. Capitol crimes in a war zone are frowned on just as they would be at home.

Killing the enemy is the job, killing civilians is not and never has been. There is no battle front immunity for rape or murder. Who writes such crap?

OK, Carl. It's been several years since I read the report, but there is abundant evidence that she is guilty of land fraud, and various means of obstruction of justice, just as in the Lewinsky case.

Don't you remember the Rose Law Firm files showing up mysteriously in her bedroom or in a room adjacent to it, after she said she had no recollection of their contents, under oath?

Please.

Kind of ironic, in the two cases, The presumption of innocence is denied to the men who risk their lives to protect that right, and the woman whose candidacy benefited from the donations of people whw received pardons from her husband. It should be exactly the other way 'round

And I'm with Carl, the Hilary connection is…?

The only connection that I can see is that the linked article contains offtopic Clinton Derangement Syndrome related trolling.

The only connection that I can see is that the linked article contains offtopic Clinton Derangement Syndrome related trolling.

Are you really accusing me of posting "off topic" and "trolling" on my own blog?

Mmmmmmm...that's good chutzpah.

Are you really accusing me of posting "off topic" and "trolling" on my own blog?

I agree. Rand really needs to clean up his act. Or at least stay on topic and stop trolling for God's sake.

And if something does go to trial, it's either not guilty, or guilty. A hung jury is a special case, and it's still not a guilty.

And if something does go to trial, it's either not guilty, or guilty. A hung jury is a special case, and it's still not a guilty.

You are confusing whether someone is actually guilty, or merely guilty in the eyes of the law. OJ Simpson was "not guilty." That doesn't mean that he didn't butcher his wife and her friend. As I wrote, "innocent until proven guilty" is for the court of the state, not for the court of public opinion.

OJ Simpson was "not guilty." That doesn't mean that he didn't butcher his wife and her friend.

All too true Rand. So, do you still beat your wife?

And Rand, I am ofcourse kidding, but that sort of logical fallacy is exactly what you're using against OJ.

OTOH, anyone who publishes a book entitled "If I had done it" after being ruled not guilty is a special case who deserves to be publicly lynched.

All too true Rand. So, do you still beat your wife?

I don't answer complex questions. This seems like a non sequitur. What's your point?

Is there some evidence that I beat my wife? There's abundant, in fact overwhelming evidence that OJ murdered his.

that sort of logical fallacy is exactly what you're using against OJ.

Nonsense.

As I said, there is abundant evidence that OJ murdered his wife. What would be illogical is to think him innocent. Just as is the case with the Clinton's. The fact that there was insufficient evidence for Ray (in his opinion) to indict and prosecute doesn't mean that there was none. It was abundant, and documented.