EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5819
| 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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9861 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9861 Posts
On October 30 2016 21:40 Liquid`Jinro wrote: .... He has to have been modelled on Trump originally. That's too uncanny. Even if he was, they have managed to predict that he would run for president and predict his attitude to global warming (Richfield ends up destroying the world in 'Dinosaurs' because he sees global cooling as a 4th quarter problem) as well as a lot of other stuff. It just goes to show that this forgotten little TV show from the 90s was much more switched on the world's issues than most people thought at the time haha. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
So with Clinton being investigated, her supporters come up with things like this? Don't they have more pressing issues? | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 30 2016 22:01 Liquid`Jinro wrote: I watched it a little bit as a wee lad but being like 6 years old I don't remember it too well... kinda want to watch it now. I watched it growing up as well. I liked it as a dumb kid but figured like most things you like as a kid its actually terrible. But watching that clip it turns out it might have actually had some legitimately decent writing. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9861 Posts
On October 30 2016 22:07 SoSexy wrote: So with Clinton being investigated, her supporters come up with things like this? Don't they have more pressing issues? Its political satire my friend, its always there because its funny to laugh at stuff. You don't really need to look at it any deeper than that, its not an attack on Trump so much as a particularly funny video. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2016 22:24 riotjune wrote: What kinda dinosaur is that? It looks like a Triceratops but too many horns. Asking the real questions. | ||
|
Dismay
United States1180 Posts
On October 30 2016 22:07 SoSexy wrote: So with Clinton being investigated, her supporters come up with things like this? Don't they have more pressing issues? I'm not pro-Hdawg by any means but that was uploaded on the 21st. Plus, what are her supporters supposed to do? Write mean tweets so that Comey stops? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Democrats asking for something Monday. Wonder how viable that is | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Any of the lawyers in this thread want to take a stab at this one? If she was able to avoid criminal charges, then this is the next lower level: fine + ban from public office. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On October 30 2016 22:59 biology]major wrote: www.law.cornell.edu Any of the lawyers in this thread want to take a stab at this one? If she was able to avoid criminal charges, then this is the next lower level: fine + ban from public office. IANAL, but doesn't that passage have the same "intent" burden Comey originally talked about not being provable? There's another passage that sets the burden at "gross negligence," which you and others have argued should be met by the "extreme carelessness" Comey described, and I and others have tried to explain how even that is a specialized legal term with a pretty strict meaning, but this section you linked is unambiguously requiring intent. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
On October 30 2016 23:24 ChristianS wrote: IANAL, but doesn't that passage have the same "intent" burden Comey originally talked about not being provable? There's another passage that sets the burden at "gross negligence," which you and others have argued should be met by the "extreme carelessness" Comey described, and I and others have tried to explain how even that is a specialized legal term with a pretty strict meaning, but this section you linked is unambiguously requiring intent. I'm sitting for the Michigan Bar in July and this seems like a reasonable. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 30 2016 23:24 ChristianS wrote: IANAL, but doesn't that passage have the same "intent" burden Comey originally talked about not being provable? There's another passage that sets the burden at "gross negligence," which you and others have argued should be met by the "extreme carelessness" Comey described, and I and others have tried to explain how even that is a specialized legal term with a pretty strict meaning, but this section you linked is unambiguously requiring intent. part A specifically states intent, but the second part does not. Do both parts have to be satisfied? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 30 2016 23:36 farvacola wrote: Part B requires intent as well, you aren't reading very closely. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States." It was definitely willful, it is difficult to prove that she intended to cause harm, which I am not seeing here. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 30 2016 23:40 farvacola wrote: It was not "definitely willful," that'd be the central issue at trial alongside a proof of harm. There is definitely a difference in terms of law regarding the words willful and intent, as the second part doesn't use the word intent but the first does. Unless you think she set up her private email server while sleepwalking or under hypnosis, I don't see how it isn't willful. Did she intend to cause harm through her actions? who knows, Comey thought no. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On October 30 2016 23:34 biology]major wrote: part A specifically states intent, but the second part does not. Do both parts have to be satisfied? But part A and part B have the same penalties, except for the barred from office bit, so it would be strange indeed to have the more onerous penalty for the less difficult burden of proof. I figure part B is referencing part A's charge, and adding that if you're guilty according to part A, you also get an additional penalty. | ||
| ||
