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.
The Green Party’s likely presidential nominee said federal officials should prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and endangering national security.
In a Wednesday statement, Jill Stein echoed Republican criticism of the Obama administration, saying that the FBI “is giving Clinton a pass” by declining to recommend criminal charges related to her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of State.
“All the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation,” Stein said in a statement. “Her staff has said Secretary Clinton stated she used her private email system because she did not want her personal emails to become accessible under [Freedom of Information] laws,” she added. “This is damning on two counts — that she intended to disregard the protection of security information, and that she had personal business to conceal.”
FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday said the investigation found little evidence to suggest Clinton and her aides intended to mishandle sensitive information, though they did appear to be “extremely careless.”
Still, that did not meet the legal standard of “gross negligence,” Comey said.
Stein disagreed and said that details about the setup revealed by the FBI “undermined the defenses Clinton put forward." Aides to Clinton have not claimed she was aiming to thwart the Freedom of Information Act in particular, though in emails she said she didn’t “want any risk of the personal [messages] being accessible.”
Insisting that Clinton be prosecuted for mishandling classified information is an unexpected position for Stein, who, like Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, has hoped to take advantage of the high public disapproval of both Clinton and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Stein has made a blatant appeal to supporters of Clinton’s primary opponents Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
But Sanders has repeatedly refused to attack Clinton over the email issue, memorably shutting the conversation down in October, saying voters were "sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
Stein on Wednesday also alluded to potential conflicts of interest during Clinton’s time in office, such as the relationship between her official duties as the nation’s top diplomat and benefactors of her family foundation.
“The blurring of the lines between Clinton family private business and national security matters in the secretary of State office underscores evidence on many other fronts that Hillary Clinton is serving the 1 percent, not we the people,” Stein said.
“The secretary of State's office should not be a place to conduct private back room business deals."
Good ole crazy Jill. Let me know when she is willing to deny the effectiveness of holistic medicine. She's a loon who is only on people's radars because she does her best to ride the Bernie train.
On July 07 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that took long enough.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment.
Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances."
Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive."
Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims.
Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year.
Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."
The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured."
Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law.
Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom."
EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances.
Glad to see we're now using physical appearances as a metric for judging whether someone is guilty or not guilty.
Prior to any knowledge of the case whatsoever you've already made up your mind.
On July 07 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that took long enough.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment.
Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances."
Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive."
Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims.
Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year.
Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."
The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured."
Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law.
Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom."
EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances.
Glad to see we're now using physical appearances as a metric for judging whether someone is guilty or not guilty.
Prior to any knowledge of the case whatsoever you've already made up your mind.
On July 06 2016 22:14 Plansix wrote: Fair warning to folks, that Alton Sterling video is incredibly disturbing and making the rounds on the internet. I am sure some folks here won’t be bothered but if you think it might bother, I would skip it.
Yup. It's absolutely sickening and grotesque. A fucking execution.
And in the end, it will turn out that no one is guilty of anything. At most someone is going to be discharged from the police force. Like every single time. Because apparently people just randomly die in police custody all the time, and police are incapable of doing anything wrong.
Well, the Baltimore prosecutors went ham against their officers, and covered up exonerating evidence, committed several Brady violations, and may be disbarred for essentially lying to judges and the public. So, it really depends on the setting.
But still, juries believe cops much more than the average person, regardless of what happens. Any time spent in criminal court will show you this (even though they are, in my experience clerking, more likely than the average witness to fabricate details of a story).
It literally goes both ways with the vast majority of reasonable people refusing to criticize their own radicals faults. This is politics 101 and why everything is getting more and more polarized in the age of mass information. People aren't wise enough to handle the knowledge they've been given access to.
Its also the age of mass misinformation which isn't helping anything.
why do people continue to think that pointing out obvious issues in low-effort posts does anything but encourage circlejerking
maybe there just wasn't much conscious thought at all
it's just the age of mass loweffort circlejerking which isn't helping anything
Notice how no one has replied to any of your posts yet? Maybe your posts aren't as intellectual as you think they are.
that's why you're going for the personal attack and i'm addressing a more pertinent and less-discussed issue than the posts i'm responding to, right?
has nothing to do with the fact that i'm actually introducing at least comparatively new thoughts by rightfully admonishing worthless overused ones
Maybe do less of that. Your ongoing commentary on peoples posting isn’t that interesting. Most of the people in this thread have been posting here for months or years, so its not really necessary either.
the posting itself isn't that interesting... are you really defending the posts? if you have an issue with my angle, please, articulate it. if you have an issue with any of my premises or conclusions, please, articulate them.
if i'm wrong, then i'd like to know how, and if i'm not wrong, then maybe people should stop posting such basic low-effort stuff.
have you guys considered it's more pseudointellectual to respond to things you have responses completely ready for than to stop and think about stuff that seems strange or offputting to you at first, that you don't have an easy response for?
Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine.
it's not about literally moderating and punishing them for low effort
its calling them out for what i consider bad intellectual habits and giving them a chance to defend the merit of their posts
why is it taken for granted that every (non-personal attack non-meme) post is sacred and the act of posting it is, at the least, unassailable?
by the original definition of meme, the posts i called out were certainly overused memes with very little room for discussion, especially given the fact that they made no attempts to foster discussion. i feel compelled to emphasize that it's not backseat modding because i'm attempting to appeal to the posters' free will, not saying that what they're posting should be inherently disallowed. if they didnt express those thoughts in the first place, i wouldn't have been able to express my thoughts that their habitual expression of those thoughts (sans attempt at getting something new out of bringing it up) is itself an issue.
EDIT: also have to point out the irony of you attempting to moderate my posting as a not-mod
i'm bringing up actual points about the issues of cliche complaints in political discussions that tend to lead nowhere and 1. OuchyDatHurts and 2. Plansix make literally 0 attempt at addressing the content and 1. ODH personally insults me with a one-liner telling me i'm not intellectual and 2. P6 attempts to shame me by telling me my posts arent interesting, as if he's the arbiter of interesting, and tells me to stop pointing out flaws in other peoples posts as if that isn't essentially the point of this thread, if not at least a staple
Seems like you're starting to understand what this is.
Now you know why I engage the way I typically do.
TL seems to be making a little progress on this, less people want to defend the police on this, and very few are ignoring that the "investigation" being performed by the department responsible is ludicrous. Now maybe if people take a look at the police union contracts they may understand why this absurdity is still the case. All police aren't bad, but they have collectively bargained to protect criminals among themselves and that should be something everyone of all political stripes pushed to change years ago.
There are no excuses other than you don't care, or you like it the way it is, both unacceptable and grotesque.
For those complaining about some of the poor arguments as an excuse to ignore the problem, kapi was kind. We've tried everything you ignorant folks are suggesting for decades or centuries, just because you're just learning about the struggle (through bigoted you tube videos usually) doesn't mean we are. Get out of your bubble and learn something, when idiots say "if black people just" I can't help but twitch at the shear ignorance only surpassed by the pride and entitlement that comes with it.
Here's what we were saying 50 damn years ago. We can go back to Fredrick Douglass, or we can go even further back where you probably won't even recognize their names because they aren't a part of the history you were taught. Point is too many white people didn't listen then, didn't listen through the 70's and 80's when we said the abuse was still constant, ignored it in the 90's when Rodney King was beaten on camera, ignored it through the first decade of the 21st century and continue to complain that they are tired of hearing their complaints, but refuse to take even the most basic steps to prevent what they are complaining about because they can find a case that's not the best representation of the argument and use it to ignore the rest like a small child.
I love James Baldwin. I had to say it instantly as his head popped on my screen.
On July 07 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that took long enough.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment.
Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances."
Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive."
Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims.
Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year.
Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."
The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured."
Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law.
Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom."
EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances.
Hard for me to imagine O'Reilly isn't involved in this in someway unnamed as he's long been a white knight for Gretchen, plugging her fiction writing constantly like he got some of the profit. While also being condescending as hell and creepy to many female guests.
There's an unwritten rule about women having to withstand a certain degree of sexual harassment in any job, but what they have going on over at Fox News seems distinct.
That's my favorite part about Megyn Kelly is how since she's the hottest ticket they have, both in ratings and someone who can actually host a show, so she usually dumps all over what is basically accepted by most of the women at Fox News on things like women getting maternity leave, and other topics women typically have a less "Fox Newsish" opinion on and the guys are always stupefied.
I feel like this election cycle has been like looking into the inner workings of a wrist watch we've been using after people keep telling us it's not working, seeing some cobwebs and broken gears being rustled by a gust of wind and thinking to ourselves, "Hmm, something seems askew, but it's probably still working alright".
On July 06 2016 22:14 Plansix wrote: Fair warning to folks, that Alton Sterling video is incredibly disturbing and making the rounds on the internet. I am sure some folks here won’t be bothered but if you think it might bother, I would skip it.
Yup. It's absolutely sickening and grotesque. A fucking execution.
And in the end, it will turn out that no one is guilty of anything. At most someone is going to be discharged from the police force. Like every single time. Because apparently people just randomly die in police custody all the time, and police are incapable of doing anything wrong.
Well, the Baltimore prosecutors went ham against their officers, and covered up exonerating evidence, committed several Brady violations, and may be disbarred for essentially lying to judges and the public. So, it really depends on the setting.
But still, juries believe cops much more than the average person, regardless of what happens. Any time spent in criminal court will show you this (even though they are, in my experience clerking, more likely than the average witness to fabricate details of a story).
I think that last part comes from police knowing how unlikely it is that they will be charged with perjury, let alone found guilty of it. Most witnesses are not aware of that.
On July 07 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that took long enough.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment.
Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances."
Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive."
Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims.
Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year.
Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."
The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured."
Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law.
Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom."
EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances.
Glad to see we're now using physical appearances as a metric for judging whether someone is guilty or not guilty.
Prior to any knowledge of the case whatsoever you've already made up your mind.
He made all the women he put on camera dress up in "Fox Glam". Fox Glam suspiciously looks like stripper makeup and neon dresses (no pants allowed, even if you are sitting on a couch with your crotch exposed). He made their appearances central to their employment. I am merely turning his deeds back on him for a bit.
EDIT: and yes, he looks suspiciously like Baron Harkonen. Considering the evil and stupidity his foul network has unleashed (see, Bush2 and Trump), I would put his character somewhere around there as well.
On July 06 2016 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote: Let's turn all of the shit coming from the Sanders camp and flip it to a scenario where Sanders won with a similar margin. Completely made up scenario, but Sanders supporters seem to be good at those.
I as a Hillary supporter refuse to vote for Sanders because I think he's a nut and has done nothing to earn my support.
Hillary hasn't endorsed because Sanders hasn't given on positions
The superdelegates don't vote till July
Do these seem reasonable at all?
I'm a Bernie supporter and I don't intend to vote for Hillary, but rather for Trump, because DNC / HRC fucked with us so hard this democratic nomination by election fraud, wide-spread rampant voter supression, dirty tricks, mainstream media manipulation, etc.
I could care less what Hillary's policies are. God knows that woman changes her views every week depending on who her audience is.
The establishment undermined us hard, took away our basic voting right, and scoffed at us when we threatened to not vote for Hillary by trying to intimidate us with the Trump alternative. Well guess what? I'm voting Trump to bring down Hillary / DNC. At least with Trump you know what you're getting.
Ah. So you don't care that an elected Trump will mean a Supreme Court that will undermine, block and/or rollback every progressive initiative, including every single issue and policy that Bernie has campaigned upon, for the next 20-30 years, including recent victories like gay marriage, or that Trump changes policies on a daily basis. Or that I've yet to see proof of this "voter suppression", because the behavior of Bernie supporters in Nevada was disgraceful. Just going to keep drinking the diehard "Berniebro" kool-aid, to be edgy and anti-establishment.
Gotcha. I can't afford to say I have the same luxury to vote based on un-substantiated feelings and vague accusations, though my vote is unlikely to matter given Maryland. I just don't get this mentality that if Bernie doesn't win, I'll vote Trump, when Trump diametrically opposes everything Bernie stands for and believes in.
What's to say Hillary will elect a progressive Justice? Hillary is a lying scum, and isn't really a progressive - she's pretty Republican although she parrots issues that Bernie has been fighting for. Watch, if she gets elected, she'll flip flop on every progressive issue that she copied Sanders on, and go back to sucking the toes of the big money elites.
Behavior of Bernier supporters in Nevada was disgraceful? Do you even investigate the stuff or do you blindly follow what mass media tells you? Because mass media lied in the beginning and said Bernie supporters caused violence there, but it was a lie, and then mass media came out with the truth, we were wrong, etc. after a while, but the damage was already done. The mass media has been with DNC and against Bernie from the beginning, calling election at single digit % votes were in, doing shady as hell shit. The establishment leader admitting on national TV that superdelegates exist to make sure establishment can override the wishes of the common people, etc.
Dude, you are so ignorant about this, and yet you accuse me of being a kool-aid Bernie bro? LOL
On July 06 2016 22:14 Plansix wrote: Fair warning to folks, that Alton Sterling video is incredibly disturbing and making the rounds on the internet. I am sure some folks here won’t be bothered but if you think it might bother, I would skip it.
Yup. It's absolutely sickening and grotesque. A fucking execution.
And in the end, it will turn out that no one is guilty of anything. At most someone is going to be discharged from the police force. Like every single time. Because apparently people just randomly die in police custody all the time, and police are incapable of doing anything wrong.
Well, the Baltimore prosecutors went ham against their officers, and covered up exonerating evidence, committed several Brady violations, and may be disbarred for essentially lying to judges and the public. So, it really depends on the setting.
But still, juries believe cops much more than the average person, regardless of what happens. Any time spent in criminal court will show you this (even though they are, in my experience clerking, more likely than the average witness to fabricate details of a story).
We can't forget that cops are basically incentivized to lie due to the twisted way our country has viewed criminal justice. From the NYT in 2013:
Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests. In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game. And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs — in Tulia, Tex. and Oakland, Calif., for example — have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.
And when these deep cultures of corruption are uncovered we're lucky to evne see the most egreegious violaters sanctioned in any significant way, the heads of these undeniably corrupted departments are almost never prosecuted and even more rarely convicted of anything despite overseeing gross and rampant abuses of peoples constitutional and civil rights.
Anyone in the criminal legal field or legal field at all really thinking this whole ordeal is anything less than a ruination should probably seek different employment for the sake of justice if they hold any value in it imo.
On July 07 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that took long enough.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment.
Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances."
Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive."
Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims.
Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year.
Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better."
The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured."
Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law.
Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom."
EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances.
Glad to see we're now using physical appearances as a metric for judging whether someone is guilty or not guilty.
Prior to any knowledge of the case whatsoever you've already made up your mind.
He made all the women he put on camera dress up in "Fox Glam". Fox Glam suspiciously looks like stripper makeup and neon dresses (no pants allowed, even if you are sitting on a couch with your crotch exposed). He made their appearances central to their employment. I am merely turning his deeds back on him for a bit.
EDIT: and yes, he looks suspiciously like Baron Harkonen. Considering the evil and stupidity his foul network has unleashed (see, Bush2 and Trump), I would put his character somewhere around there as well.
If he's guilty he should be charged as guilty, not on the fact that he looks like a fat slob, but based on the determination that he committed crimes.
Also, Fox has gone a very long way in becoming a less biased and more respectable news program than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. Calling it 'evil' is very naive.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Tue August 11, 2015 - CNN
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
it is; the fbi has just made a calculated decision not to disrupt her campaign too much, likely as a compromise for their perception of national security
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
If she lied to the FBI they would have prosecuted her in a second. Its a felony to do that (although, IMO, one of dubious constitutionality), and its basically the FBI's favorite crime to get people on. Thus, we know she did not do that.
However, the remaining parts are possibly perjury or other related crimes. However, they are all hard to prosecute against someone who is going to fight it. Her paranoia paid off in this way also because they cant know what they don't know when it comes to deleted emails.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Tue August 11, 2015 - CNN
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
If she lied to the FBI they would have prosecuted her in a second. Its a felony to do that (although, IMO, one of dubious constitutionality), and its basically the FBI's favorite crime to get people on. Thus, we know she did not do that.
However, the remaining parts are possibly perjury or other related crimes. However, they are all hard to prosecute against someone who is going to fight it. Her paranoia paid off in this way also because they cant know what they don't know when it comes to deleted emails.
She did lie to congress while giving sworn testimony (remember all the celebration from her supporters around how she slayed the hearing?) and to a federal judge. I know it's pretty hard to nail someone with but her statements didn't leave much wiggle room and have been shown to be false. Is it really that two tiered of a justice system?
I mean that judge at least should want some redress for being lied to, no? From what I gather judges don't like to be made to look a fool even if they are politically inclined to favor the liar?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Tue August 11, 2015 - CNN
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
If she lied to the FBI they would have prosecuted her in a second. Its a felony to do that (although, IMO, one of dubious constitutionality), and its basically the FBI's favorite crime to get people on. Thus, we know she did not do that.
However, the remaining parts are possibly perjury or other related crimes. However, they are all hard to prosecute against someone who is going to fight it. Her paranoia paid off in this way also because they cant know what they don't know when it comes to deleted emails.
The question of whether or not she lied has been answered. It's no longer 'did she lie?' but 'did she intentionally lie or do so out of incompetence'. The FBI seems to have given her the benefit of the doubt that she did not intentionally do so but was just incompetent.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.
Tue August 11, 2015 - CNN
We already know that the trove of Clinton’s work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, “The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
Can one of the legal minds here explain how that isn't worthy of prosecution for lying to a federal judge or at minimum some sort of sanction, disbarred like her husband perhaps?
If she lied to the FBI they would have prosecuted her in a second. Its a felony to do that (although, IMO, one of dubious constitutionality), and its basically the FBI's favorite crime to get people on. Thus, we know she did not do that.
However, the remaining parts are possibly perjury or other related crimes. However, they are all hard to prosecute against someone who is going to fight it. Her paranoia paid off in this way also because they cant know what they don't know when it comes to deleted emails.
The question of whether or not she lied has been answered. It's no longer 'did she lie?' but 'did she intentionally lie or do so out of incompetence'. The FBI seems to have given her the benefit of the doubt that she did not intentionally do so but was just incompetent.
In fairness, while many overlap, those particular sets of lies were not under oath and her supporters have made clear it's not enough to dissuade them, but it does show some versions of the lies she did tell under oath, and it's not been clear whether her supporters are actually calling for her crimes to be ignored/minimized or whether they are still asserting she didn't lie. Steve Rattner had a hell of a time trying to figure out which he was doing this morning.
The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me.
such a decision is not likely to be made on technical determinations of severity of breach of law, but a pragmatic choice not to potentially end Clinton's run
On July 07 2016 07:52 kapibara-san wrote: The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me.
so, you like conspiracy theories then, eh? :D I see no reason for such a fancy reason when a far simpler one will do. gogo occam's razor!
and because i'm bored, AMA on us politics! (i.e. ask me any question you want (subject to forum rules ofc) on my stances and such)
On July 07 2016 07:52 kapibara-san wrote: The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me.
so, you like conspiracy theories then, eh? :D I see no reason for such a fancy reason when a far simpler one will do. gogo occam's razor!
i am applying occam's razor from my perspective
my wife goes to harvard law... she talks to me about cases and the history of the judicial branch... there's a lot more discretion in such determinations than you seem to think
hell, half of the supreme court opinions i read are just literal personal opinions cloaked in rhetoric and case law
and really this is the most conspiracy-theory-sounding thing i believe
do you really think the FBI thought about this decision in a vacuum and didn't consider the potential consequences of pursuing an indictment?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/08/article-2536077-1A7D4FD600000578-224_634x481.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/w4m9t0fat1tt1tawczo5.jpg)
