|
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 October 18 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. Hell, Congress could appoint a special prosecutor by its own initiative if it disagrees with the FBI recommendation and the DoJ decision not to prosecute.
When Congress is choosing not to prosecute Clinton, people need to realize how innocent she must be.
|
On October 18 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no?  Charges were dismissed http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodman
Awesome, it's nice to see some good news these days :/.
|
On October 18 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Charges were dismissed http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodmanhttps://twitter.com/ReedBrody/status/788086295327277056
Well that completely undercuts that disingenuous argument.
And that is good to hear.
|
On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no?
are you arguing that everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty?
|
On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted.
What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be.
What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2016 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. Hell, Congress could appoint a special prosecutor by its own initiative if it disagrees with the FBI recommendation and the DoJ decision not to prosecute. When Congress is choosing not to prosecute Clinton, people need to realize how innocent she must be.
Meh, she still goofed in a stupid way and did something she shouldn't have. It's a pretty dumb violation of protocol that most people would be fired and investigated for. But if they want to say that she is a crook, they have the means to force the issue. So special prosecutor or fuck off is my opinion on the matter.
|
On October 18 2016 03:43 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to have a TV network with Russian investment if RT America has been going for 6 years
e: forgot a word exactly, i was gonna talk about RT America, whats the big deal?
People labelling RT as pure Russian propaganda are exaggerating about as much as people saying that Clinton will lead us to WW3.
|
On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them).
Yeah, this is something they would typically point out about others. We all know the idea that "no charges = innocent" is not how reality works. Lots of reasons besides being innocent that charges don't come down. Pretty sure any prosecutor will tell you (at least off the record) that they intentionally avoid cases where they don't think they can secure a conviction (independent of the defendants guilt).
|
On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them).
This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2016 04:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 03:43 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 18 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to have a TV network with Russian investment if RT America has been going for 6 years
e: forgot a word exactly, i was gonna talk about RT America, whats the big deal? People labelling RT as pure Russian propaganda are exaggerating about as much as people saying that Clinton will lead us to WW3.
If you want to use it, then at the very least approach it with some degree of skepticism. RT is actually a pretty good news source for underdeveloped countries in the Middle East and Latin America where a pro-Russian bias is the least of their problems. But you don't make a state sponsored foreign language news source without an agenda.
I prefer to read Russian news in Russian because there are good sources in the original language (about BBC quality in fact) but that's not really an option for most people, so just use what you have and apply a reasonable level of skepticism.
|
On October 18 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them). This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes?
You don't understand how the existence of people who do illegal things and face no charges undermines the reasoning that someone who wasn't charged has necessarily done nothing illegal?
|
On October 18 2016 04:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them). This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes? You don't understand how the existence of people who do illegal things and face no charges undermines the reasoning that someone who wasn't charged has necessarily done nothing illegal?
The charges were thrown out for having no basis in reality.
|
On October 18 2016 04:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them). This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes? You don't understand how the existence of people who do illegal things and face no charges undermines the reasoning that someone who wasn't charged has necessarily done nothing illegal?
Yes. So what is the point again? If congress felt the charges had merit, they could charge her. The head of FBI made a compelling argument before congress on two separate occasions, both of which have been discussed in this thread. Do you have anything to refute the director’s specific points of why the emails did not raise the level of criminal charges?
|
On October 18 2016 04:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. Hell, Congress could appoint a special prosecutor by its own initiative if it disagrees with the FBI recommendation and the DoJ decision not to prosecute. When Congress is choosing not to prosecute Clinton, people need to realize how innocent she must be. Meh, she still goofed in a stupid way and did something she shouldn't have. It's a pretty dumb violation of protocol that most people would be fired and investigated for. But if they want to say that she is a crook, they have the means to force the issue. So special prosecutor or fuck off is my opinion on the matter.
Special investigator would only prove your goddess is clean as a whistle. Which is why they won't do it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2016 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. Hell, Congress could appoint a special prosecutor by its own initiative if it disagrees with the FBI recommendation and the DoJ decision not to prosecute. When Congress is choosing not to prosecute Clinton, people need to realize how innocent she must be. Meh, she still goofed in a stupid way and did something she shouldn't have. It's a pretty dumb violation of protocol that most people would be fired and investigated for. But if they want to say that she is a crook, they have the means to force the issue. So special prosecutor or fuck off is my opinion on the matter. Special investigator would only prove your goddess is clean as a whistle. Which is why they won't do it.
They could probably extract a fine or State Department sanction or something if they went there. Not really what they would like from that issue but I doubt she would get off scot-free.
|
United States42971 Posts
Problem is they can't fire her from her position because she already left it. She'd be fired if she was still there but with her gone there is no employer based administrative punishment to apply.
|
On October 18 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 04:57 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah. Also the same guy that tried to wire tap a senators phone. Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them). This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes? You don't understand how the existence of people who do illegal things and face no charges undermines the reasoning that someone who wasn't charged has necessarily done nothing illegal? Yes. So what is the point again? If congress felt the charges had merit, they could charge her. The head of FBI made a compelling argument before congress on two separate occasions, both of which have been discussed in this thread. Do you have anything to refute the director’s specific points of why the emails did not raise the level of criminal charges?
That is the point, the post you just quoted to ask me what the point is, contains the entire point: Whether the government has charged you is not proof of whether you've done something illegal. You're confused because I wasn't addressing you, go back to the beginning of the chain.
|
Rob Portman is sending me mailers and I haven't lived in Ohio for years.
|
I got mailings from trump asking me for donations and talking about my long-time commitment to republicans (not true); I wonder if they just spam mailing everyone, or if I'm on some odd list.
|
On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 04:57 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 04:48 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:42 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 04:40 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 04:34 Orcasgt24 wrote:On October 18 2016 03:44 zeo wrote:On October 18 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Did he get charged for that? Because I’m pretty sure that is illegal. I'm pretty sure deleting 30,000 emails you were subpoenaed to hand over is also illegal. FBI disagreed. Because if it was illegal Clinton woulda been charged. If Amy Goodman wasn't doing anything illegal she wouldn't be facing riot charges, no? Been awhile since I've seen logical gymnastics that convoluted. What I said is not logically equivalent to what he said and it's not meant to be. What I'm trying to expose is that he's assumed, or asserted, that when the government doesn't charge someone, they're always right, i.e. there are no false negatives. This is as baseless as assuming there are no false positives (prisons are full of them). This is true for all criminal investigations, so why does it matter in the current discussion of two specific cases with known outcomes? You don't understand how the existence of people who do illegal things and face no charges undermines the reasoning that someone who wasn't charged has necessarily done nothing illegal? Yes. So what is the point again? If congress felt the charges had merit, they could charge her. The head of FBI made a compelling argument before congress on two separate occasions, both of which have been discussed in this thread. Do you have anything to refute the director’s specific points of why the emails did not raise the level of criminal charges? That is the point, the post you just quoted to ask me what the point is, contains the entire point: Whether the government has charged you is not proof of whether you've done something illegal. You're confused because I wasn't addressing you, go back to the beginning of the chain.
Yes, but he was discussing the specific Clinton case and the line of the discussion was that if the case had legs, congress would have appointed a prosecutor. So in the context of the discussion, he comment made perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
