Clinton went drinking at a local bar with some friends. While driving home, Clinton swerved into the oncoming lane of traffic and crashed head-on with a vehicle driven by Angela. Angela was killed. Tests following the crash showed that Clinton's blood-alcohol level was double the legal limit for driving. Clinton was charged with involuntary manslaughter. If Clinton raises the defense of intoxication, which statement is correct? The defense of involuntary intoxication will be successful since Clinton didn't intend to become intoxicated. The defense of involuntary intoxication will be successful since Clinton didn't intend to kill Angela. The defense of voluntary intoxication will not be a valid defense since involuntary manslaughter does not require specific intent. The defense of voluntary intoxication will be a valid defense since Clinton's intoxication negated the required malice aforethought. Under recent interpretations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife has no bearing on the ESA at all. is a taking of an endangered species when it results in harm or injury to that species: is illegal when the damage exceeds $1,000,000. is always illegal. all of the above. none of the above