|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2016 05:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
Politically active people are on all sorts of lists.
|
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.
He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point.
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
|
On October 18 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Neither Orcasgt24 nor anyone before him said a thing about Congress or a special prosecutor, I'm wasting time even trying to speak over the argument you're having with yourself or navigate around whatever bait this is.
|
On October 18 2016 05:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Neither Orcasgt24 nor anyone before him said a thing about Congress or a special prosecutor, I'm wasting time even trying to speak over the argument you're having with yourself or navigate around whatever bait this is.
He said the FBI disagreed, which is correct. Unless you are making the argument that the FBI would never have charged her even if the evidence supported it, I’m not really sure where you expected this to go. Are you saying the FBI would never have charged Clinton?
|
On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point.
People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this?
On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted.
|
On October 18 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
You're a couple hours late on that one. We had a nice discussion about how some of us don't find John Oliver particularly funny.
He's much better when he's helping to elucidate topics that don't have a ton of visibility, but in this case anyone with some remote interest in the 3rd party candidates is well aware of those flaws and don't need John Oliver to explain them to them. If they're still voting 3rd party anyway, it's because they don't care, think they're still less problematic than Trump/Clinton's flaws, or are trying to make a statement.
I can't keep up with the pace of the thread it seems. 
Still though when you see that it becomes quite clear quite fast how bleak the American political scene is.
|
|
|
On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted.
Fair enough; replace "cleared of charges" to "Not being charged after an extensive investigation".
Otherwise all you're saying (between the lines of course) is no matter what you are going to assume & treat Clinton as guilty no matter what because sometimes people aren't properly charged for their crimes. And on top of that refuse to see how other people prefer to treat people as innocent in the absence of proof.
|
On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted.
while true; if you have been identified and investigated and they decline to prosecute, it means that there would be an acquittal if charges were filed.
unsolved murder rate also includes a lot of cases where no suspect is ever identified.
|
On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted.
It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed!
|
On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:[quote] 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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed!
It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights.
|
Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) office on Monday walked back his suggestion that Senate Republicans could continue to stonewall the confirmation of a ninth Supreme Court justice if Hillary Clinton is elected, insisting he will cast a vote on any nominee the next president puts forward.
"Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” McCain spokesman Rachael Dean told TPM in a statement. “That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."
The Arizona senator said in a radio interview earlier Monday that GOP lawmakers would remain “united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”
The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat has remained empty since his death in February. Republicans have refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, making the unprecedented case that the next president should be able to decide who is nominated to the Supreme Court.
Source
|
On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:[quote] 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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed!
I am not expert on gross negligence, but my limited understanding that it is hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with a strong case. And the FBI director says he did not feel it was a strong case. Is this incorrect?
|
On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights.
She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review.
Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute.
I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation.
|
On October 18 2016 06:13 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:[quote] 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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. Fair enough; replace "cleared of charges" to "Not being charged after an extensive investigation". Otherwise all you're saying (between the lines of course) is no matter what you are going to assume & treat Clinton as guilty no matter what because sometimes people aren't properly charged for their crimes. And on top of that refuse to see how other people prefer to treat people as innocent in the absence of proof.
Put words in someone else's mouth. What I said was very simple and shouldn't have blown up like this: the actions taken by a federal agency are not a form of proof any more than the fact that someone's never been diagnosed by a psychiatrist proves they're sane. I support anyone who agrees or disbelieves the FBI or looks at the facts for themselves.
|
|
|
On October 18 2016 06:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights. She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review. Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute. I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation.
Congress has the power to assign a prosecutor and prosecute Clinton. In your opinion, why have they not done so?
|
On October 18 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! I am not expert on gross negligence, but my limited understanding that it is hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with a strong case. And the FBI director says he did not feel it was a strong case. Is this incorrect?
That's not the criterion here for determination. XDaunt did the quick outline in two posts right after the press conference, simply search for negligence with the content restriction. The section of the statute involved makes very clear the lack of intent necessary (compare with reckless driving versus intent to destroy) since you don't need to be in league with America's enemies to endanger her operatives by exercising no caution in handling privileged information.
|
On October 18 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:13 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. Fair enough; replace "cleared of charges" to "Not being charged after an extensive investigation". Otherwise all you're saying (between the lines of course) is no matter what you are going to assume & treat Clinton as guilty no matter what because sometimes people aren't properly charged for their crimes. And on top of that refuse to see how other people prefer to treat people as innocent in the absence of proof. Put words in someone else's mouth. What I said was very simple and shouldn't have blown up like this: the actions taken by a federal agency are not a form of proof any more than the fact that someone's never been diagnosed by a psychiatrist proves they're sane. I support anyone who agrees or disbelieves the FBI or looks at the facts for themselves.
Care to share these facts? All I've seen are outlines of why what Hillary did was shady or unsavory (but not necessarily illegal) and loose accusations of crimes committed without any sort of reference to the laws broken or the specifics of the violations.
The only things I've seen that are specific and actually get into the relevant laws are those that claim no laws were violated based on public information (much like the below one).
|
On October 18 2016 06:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights. She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review. Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute. I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation.
What law are you talking about? Comey doesn't have to stretch very hard for 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. See the bolded below.
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
...
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Now perhaps you are talking about the 1917 law (§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information**) that Comey says was only used once in 99 years. That only plainly says INTENT in the first line. Either way, this "no intent" talking point I see right wingers use is totally fact-free.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime
** http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
