EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4252
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
| ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:02 zeo wrote: Will she face any kind of repercussions for behaving like this? One of the flaws of our system of governance is that a corrupt Justice Dept. and Executive Administration are responsible for investigating and prosecuting that same corruption. The ultimate authority and answer is the American people. The media is supposed to be a part of this process, but they are openly carrying water for the Admin and the DNC, so it all comes down to elections. Hopefully the public has grown tired of this kind of stuff, after 8 years of it, but you never can tell. Anyway, people will get what they want. If they want corruption, they can vote for the same people, over and over and over. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:25 Cowboy24 wrote: One of the flaws of our system of governance is that a corrupt Justice Dept. and Executive Administration are responsible for investigating and prosecuting that same corruption. The ultimate authority and answer is the American people. The media is supposed to be a part of this process, but they are openly carrying water for the Admin and the DNC, so it all comes down to elections. Hopefully the public has grown tired of this kind of stuff, after 8 years of it, but you never can tell. Anyway, people will get what they want. If they want corruption, they can vote for the same people, over and over and over. It's no wonder they hastily put together that Sanders/Clinton rally to slide this from the news. It really looks bad for Hillary. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Did I miss anything significant in the first 2.5 hours? On July 13 2016 01:30 zeo wrote: It's no wonder they hastily put together that Sanders/Clinton rally to slide this from the news. It really looks bad for Hillary. If this thread is any indication, the effect of that has been rather mild and might just get overshadowed by the Lynch hearing today. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:32 LegalLord wrote: I expect Lynch is going to get brutalized and that this is going to go worse for her than it will for Comey. Comey semi-cooperated with the Republican investigation and the biggest thing you could accuse him of is giving a recommendation that is controversial. Lynch is just straight up dodging the questions and making herself look guilty. Did I miss anything significant in the first 2.5 hours? If this thread is any indication, the effect of that has been rather mild and might just get overshadowed by the Lynch hearing today. Did you miss anything in the first 2,5 hours? Lets just say if there was a drinking game where I took a shot every time she said 'thank you for raising this important issue' every time a Democrat spent 5 min talking about random things... and every time she dodged a question from the Republicans... I'd be dead now. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:25 Cowboy24 wrote: One of the flaws of our system of governance is that a corrupt Justice Dept. and Executive Administration are responsible for investigating and prosecuting that same corruption. The ultimate authority and answer is the American people. The media is supposed to be a part of this process, but they are openly carrying water for the Admin and the DNC, so it all comes down to elections. Hopefully the public has grown tired of this kind of stuff, after 8 years of it, but you never can tell. Anyway, people will get what they want. If they want corruption, they can vote for the same people, over and over and over. Congress can appoint a special prosecutor if they want. They didn’t in this case. If they want to push forward with the case, they are totally able to do so. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote: Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote: Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. that makes sense | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote: Lol, this clown asking hypothetical questions for cases that would be fact driven. The answer to every single question is “maybe, depends on the facts”. Maybe if she were to offer some specifics it wouldn't look like she's dodging every question. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote: Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. are math equations not fact driven? | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:46 LegalLord wrote: Maybe if she were to offer some specifics it wouldn't look like she's dodging every question. The congressman could have gone off his prepared script that he never looked up from and provided some facts. But he didn't. That isn't really the reason for his questions. its like when same reporters call our law firm and we don't give a response, referring them to our media contact. So they print that we did not respond, because that is what they wanted to print. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Law is not math. You don't throw a bunch of "facts" into an statute and get a verdict out the other side. Judges and juries decide rulings, not some order of operations. And if you get deep into math, it gets pretty subjective. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote: Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. Is murder illegal? Is rape illegal? Is stealing from a bank illegal? Is driving 200km/h in a 50km/h zone illegal? If your answer to these questions is to repetadly say 'I dont know, I need more information. In some cases bla bla' you are dodging. Edit: Law says it is illegal, you go from there. How can you work on a case and not know weather the crime is illegal or not. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2646 Posts
On July 13 2016 01:51 Plansix wrote: Law is not math. You don't throw a bunch of "facts" into an statute and get a verdict out the other side. Judges and juries decide rulings, not some order of operations. And if you get deep into math, it gets pretty subjective. I gave up on posting in this thread, but I have to ask about what you mean by this..... Please give an example of what you are talking about. | ||
| ||
