|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:47 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman. If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one. just because that's how law currently works doesn't mean other systems can't be used. I also never said other standards would be considered convictions; which could be considered a loaded term; also different charges may not be relevant to some of the cases wherein I would want such a system. also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence.
I was going off of this.
On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it.
How does evidence of suspicion work? what kind of legal standard would that need to meet for sentencing.
Your walking into such a giant grey nebula that I don't see how you can not end up with charges you can slap on every single person alive.
|
On July 06 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:
also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence.
On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
This is probably what people are having issue with. "Suspicion" being enough for criminal punishment, even if it's lighter punishment, is not something you should expect people to sit well with.
|
On July 06 2016 10:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:47 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman. If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one. just because that's how law currently works doesn't mean other systems can't be used. I also never said other standards would be considered convictions; which could be considered a loaded term; also different charges may not be relevant to some of the cases wherein I would want such a system. also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence. I was going off of this. Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. How does evidence of suspicion work? what kind of legal standard would that need to meet for sentencing. Your walking into such a giant grey nebula that I don't see how you can not end up with charges you can slap on every single person alive.
here's an easy example: preponderance of the evidence, which is an already existing reasonably well-defined legal standard.
And the reason you see that is because you're arguing against something when you don't understand what it is; if you don't understand the point being made, it'd be better to ask for clarification from the OP, rather than argue against the wrong thing.
|
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
|
On July 06 2016 10:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:47 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman. If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one. just because that's how law currently works doesn't mean other systems can't be used. I also never said other standards would be considered convictions; which could be considered a loaded term; also different charges may not be relevant to some of the cases wherein I would want such a system. also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence. I was going off of this. On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. How does evidence of suspicion work? what kind of legal standard would that need to meet for sentencing. Your walking into such a giant grey nebula that I don't see how you can not end up with charges you can slap on every single person alive. here's an easy example: preponderance of the evidence, which is an already existing reasonably well-defined legal standard. And the reason you see that is because you're arguing against something when you don't understand what it is; if you don't understand the point being made, it'd be better to ask for clarification from the OP, rather than argue against the wrong thing.
The standard of evidence is what it is because all attempts must be made to prevent innocent people from being convicted to maintain the integrity of verdicts. Your proposing to weaken the very foundations upon which the entire system is build. Innocent until proven guilty.
No, just no.
|
On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point.
|
So if wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0 show any of the unreleased emails (like in October maybe), proving her carelessness resulted in classified information falling into enemy hands, she could still get charged and hand the election over to Trump (if all her lies around this wouldn't be enough)?
|
On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
Anyone with a law background?
FYI: Daphreak and xDaunt are lawyers, Plansix is a paralegal.
It does seem like enough to warrant a charge. Anyone else would at the very least get their clearance revoked (any normal person doing something like this would be in trouble). But Hillary is evidently getting off easy because political leverage.
|
On July 06 2016 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So if wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0 show any of the unreleased emails (like in October maybe), proving her carelessness resulted in classified information falling into enemy hands, she could still get charged and hand the election over to Trump (if all her lies around this wouldn't be enough)?
Sure, keep out holding on to hope against all evidence to the contrary if that makes you feel better.
There is no smoking gun.
|
On July 06 2016 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So if wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0 show any of the unreleased emails (like in October maybe), proving her carelessness resulted in classified information falling into enemy hands, she could still get charged and hand the election over to Trump (if all her lies around this wouldn't be enough)? Sure, keep out holding on to hope against all evidence to the contrary if that makes you feel better. There is no smoking gun.
No smoking gun, but plenty of ammo for her opponents and just little enough that her most ardent supporters will find a means to rationalize it away.
|
On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point.
Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance.
EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard."
|
On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance.
Reminds me of the "extrajudicial military replacement of a democratically elected leader" instead of calling it a coup in Egypt, because, you know, legal ramifications...
|
On July 06 2016 10:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:10 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 10:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:56 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:47 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:34 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2016 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. At that point your no longer assuming 'Innocent until proven guilty' and then you just knocked the foundation out from under the entire justice system. Plus without evidence your most definitely convicting people based on feelings. Which is always a terrible idea. that's factually untrue; there's plenty of room for more gradations that have some utility. No need to hate on an idea if you haven't thought through the possibilities. And it's just strawmanning to assume I ever said anything about going without evidence. Please don't strawman. If you have evidence you can convict someone of something. If you don't have evidence you can't convict. That is already how law works. Its why there are different charges for similar crimes. 1-2-3 degree murder being the most obvious one. just because that's how law currently works doesn't mean other systems can't be used. I also never said other standards would be considered convictions; which could be considered a loaded term; also different charges may not be relevant to some of the cases wherein I would want such a system. also, again I never said anything about acting without evidence, so stop strawmanning about me having EVER made any claim about doing anything without evidence. I was going off of this. On July 06 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
no, it covers more than just different charges; it covers cases where there's enough evidence to warrant some suspicion, but not to definitively prove.
I'd also like to change the wording on "not guilty" to "not proven guilty"; or at least seriously consider it. How does evidence of suspicion work? what kind of legal standard would that need to meet for sentencing. Your walking into such a giant grey nebula that I don't see how you can not end up with charges you can slap on every single person alive. here's an easy example: preponderance of the evidence, which is an already existing reasonably well-defined legal standard. And the reason you see that is because you're arguing against something when you don't understand what it is; if you don't understand the point being made, it'd be better to ask for clarification from the OP, rather than argue against the wrong thing. The standard of evidence is what it is because all attempts must be made to prevent innocent people from being convicted to maintain the integrity of verdicts. Your proposing to weaken the very foundations upon which the entire system is build. Innocent until proven guilty. No, just no.
i'm tired of your useless trolling, so i'm not gonna respond to you on this anymore.
You're wasting time arguing against a point which you don't understand, and with no sound basis, because you don't know what you're arguing against. Just stop talking, but since I know you won't, nor will you admit you don't know what you're talking about, I'm simply not going to respond to you on this matter anymore. Please don't waste my and others' time in the future by responding to strawmen, instead of to the posters. and yes, half your arguments have been against strawmen, like this last one, I never said other standards of evidence would be the ONLY applicable standard of evidence, and indeed wanted several different standards, or that people would be sent to prison on flimsy evidence, you just assume that, without basis. There are also already multiple standards of evidence used for various types of cases. And proven guilty TO WHAT STANDARD? There are already a few possible standards.
So tldr you're trolling, fighting strawmen, and won't admit to it, so I'm done with you.
|
AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe
The agency's yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.
Source
Maybe what she did wasn't criminal (although I'm not so sure) but there's no doubt she lied her ass off up till this point about it and had her supporters repeating the same blatant lies. If I was her supporter I'd be pissed, apparently she has them very well trained though.
|
On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligence if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard."
That's basically what Rudy Giuliani said: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html
+ Show Spoiler +
It will still be a thorn anyway.
|
On July 06 2016 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So if wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0 show any of the unreleased emails (like in October maybe), proving her carelessness resulted in classified information falling into enemy hands, she could still get charged and hand the election over to Trump (if all her lies around this wouldn't be enough)?
I'm pretty sure you can't be charged twice for the same crime. Isn't there some kind of constitutional protection against this in the US?
|
On July 06 2016 12:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So if wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0 show any of the unreleased emails (like in October maybe), proving her carelessness resulted in classified information falling into enemy hands, she could still get charged and hand the election over to Trump (if all her lies around this wouldn't be enough)? I'm pretty sure you can't be charged twice for the same crime.
Well the FBI was merely making a recommendation and so far it appears no charges are going to be filed, so you don't get to use the double jeopardy out if you're not in jeopardy the first time. So no, that wouldn't apply.
|
how wild would it be if Lynch went against the FBI's recommendation. my god.
|
On July 06 2016 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:
how wild would it be if Lynch went against the FBI's recommendation. my god.
Ironically it might be the only thing that could shield her from the scenario I outlined, for the reason Nyx mentioned.
|
On July 06 2016 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:
how wild would it be if Lynch went against the FBI's recommendation. my god.
I would go and ice skate in hell if that happened
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
