Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect
Burns Chronicles No 37
Intent v. Effect
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 30, 2016
There has been no substantial interview regarding the deliberations that resulted in 12 Not Guilty Verdicts, and One Verdict where the jury could not get consensus. However, we do have a bit of information that is probably the most critical single piece with regard to understanding just what happened that led to those verdicts.
Juror #4, the juror that brought Judge Brown the indication of bias by Juror #11, has stated that the government failed to show that the occupiers had the intention to impede the government employees. That the failure of the employees to report to the Refuge may have been an effect of the occupation. Since the Jury Instructions required the government to prove “intent”, the jury had to find them Not Guilty, at least with regard to Counts One and Two. In a written statement, Juror #4 said, “All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation.” The difference between “effect” and “intent”, then, becomes the foundation for this article.
However, first, a bit of an explanation. I seldom bring politics into any of my articles, however, to put this situation in a proper context, I think it is necessary to do so, now. Whether what I am going to bring to your attention had anything to do with their verdict, or not, is yet to be known. If it was not considered, then the irony of the comparison still should be of interest to all.
Addressing those matters that were brought to our attention, this past Friday, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server and the possibility that criminal pedophiliac material may have gone through that server. That material could possibly be emails from former Representative Anthony Weiner (New York (D)), through his wife, Muslimah Huma Abedin*, through Hillary’s rather suspicious email server, to an underage girl.
* Huma Abedin – Former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and still a prominent figure in Hillary’s campaign for President.
If that were the case, then suspicion of such activity would warrant, as in all pedophile investigations, the seizure of phones, computers, photographs, records, and almost anything that might prove to be evidence of criminal activity.
At present, there is no public knowledge of the suggested connection, FBI Director James Brien “Jim” Comey, Jr., has advised Congress that the Clinton email scandal investigation has been reopened. Rather ironically, this information comes out the day after the Verdict of Not Guilty in the Ammon Bundy trial.
However, this email scandal had its roots back on July 5, 2016, when Comey stated that, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton, or her colleagues, intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information…” (video). In his almost unprecedented statement, he recommended that the Justice Department not prosecute, because of the absence of intent.
However, it appears that the Jury in the Bundy trial had more sense than either Comey or Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the Oregon District. Comey chose not to prosecute and Williams, probably based on the recommendation of Greg Bretzing, FBI SAIC, chose to prosecute. All three ignored what even a blind man could see.
. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 37 – Intent v. Effect’ »