|
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 November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace"
“Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.”
Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech.
Next time, win an election and I’ won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate.
|
On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt.
|
On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt.
you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence, assuming it was done with intent, coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim, including the intent, and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty?
you’re kidding.
|
On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate.
I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates.
|
On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding.
What question was xDaunt answering with the word "Yep"? The rest of his post is intended to support his answer to that question. This is also the reason the tweeter said "why" if we aren't completely oblivious.
|
On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding.
I forget whether you're one of the people who's been actively following the thread for over a year or not.
there's a LOT of history to in thread behavioral patterns, which people who've been following it are aware of, and others (especially lurkers) may not be aware of.
I'm not gonna get into this one, and I try to stay otu of it (often unsuccessfully), but suffice to say, there's a lot of thread history involved in this.
|
On November 08 2017 05:28 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. What question was xDaunt answering with the word "Yep"? The rest of his post is intended to support his answer to that question.
you’d have to tell me. but to insinuate anthing but what is glaringly obvious from Danglar’s post is making an ass out of us both imo.
to address your edit: if you want to put some twits words in anyone’s mouth go ahead. but that’s just as stupid. certainly the ‘Why?’ could be answered with ‘because there was no proof to charge her with a crime so he carefully worded it such that he didn’t imply there was one.’. the article goes on to say as much. this is where your assumption about ‘But Hillary!’ has me wondering if you’re the oblivious one.
On November 08 2017 05:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. I forget whether you're one of the people who's been actively following the thread for over a year or not. there's a LOT of history to in thread behavioral patterns, which people who've been following it are aware of, and others (especially lurkers) may not be aware of. I'm not gonna get into this one, and I try to stay otu of it (often unsuccessfully), but suffice to say, there's a lot of thread history involved in this.
we certainly agree on this, but i think we disagree on which of us this makes look stupid in this instance.
|
On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates.
If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president.
It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.”
Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread.
|
On November 08 2017 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On November 08 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them. I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss. On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress. Nice try Danglars. You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo. Today I learned “Why?” Is a leading question? People have already offered normal non-conspiratorial explanations. Do you have to assume it’s a conspiratorial leading question when there’s some easy ones teed right up? Are you surrounded by too many 9/11 truthers or something? The "leadiness" of the question is meh, but if it didn't even have the memo you gotta own that. I wouldn't mind hearing the practical differences between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" (besides legal ramifications) from Comey or anyone else really. One is colloquial, one is a legal term, both basically meaning the same thing. I mean that's my impression, but anyone who disagrees want to explain their position?
If I'm reading the US law correctly, Negligence (and Gross Negligence) does require some degree of "injury" (not necessarily physical) to result from the lack of care.
In addition, Gross Negligence is a much higher standard for "lack of care". For example, willingly avoiding car checkups may count as negligence, and knowingly driving with busted break pads would be gross negligence. Don't actually know if those two examples actually count, but they get the point across.
In terms of English language, they are synonymous.
|
On November 08 2017 05:30 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:28 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. What question was xDaunt answering with the word "Yep"? The rest of his post is intended to support his answer to that question. you’d have to tell me. but to insinuate anthing but what is glaringly obvious from Danglar’s post is making an ass out of us both imo. Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:29 zlefin wrote:On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. I forget whether you're one of the people who's been actively following the thread for over a year or not. there's a LOT of history to in thread behavioral patterns, which people who've been following it are aware of, and others (especially lurkers) may not be aware of. I'm not gonna get into this one, and I try to stay otu of it (often unsuccessfully), but suffice to say, there's a lot of thread history involved in this. we certainly agree on this, but i think we disagree on which of us this makes look stupid in this instance.
I'm staying out of this instance; and was merely making the general point for the benefit of the audience.
|
On November 08 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates. If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president. It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.” Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread.
The thing I love is how it's painfully obvious you only read the titles of Coates's articles and writings.
|
On November 08 2017 05:30 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:28 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. What question was xDaunt answering with the word "Yep"? The rest of his post is intended to support his answer to that question. you’d have to tell me. but to insinuate anthing but what is glaringly obvious from Danglar’s post is making an ass out of us both imo. to address your edit: if you want to put some twits words in anyone’s mouth go ahead. but that’s just as stupid. certainly the ‘Why?’ could be answered with ‘because there was no proof to charge her with a crime so he carefully worded it such that he didn’t imply there was one.’. the article goes on to say as much. this is where your assumption about ‘But Hillary!’ imo comes off as woefully wrong. Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:29 zlefin wrote:On November 08 2017 05:25 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2017 05:19 brian wrote:
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
You're dancing around the issue of whether Hillary committed a crime, which was xDaunt's argument and main point, and presumably was the reason Danglars quoted that post of xDaunt. you see a quote from XDaunt explaining the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence coupled with an article detailing that exact same thing verbatim and presume it’s an attempt to call hillary guilty? you’re kidding. I forget whether you're one of the people who's been actively following the thread for over a year or not. there's a LOT of history to in thread behavioral patterns, which people who've been following it are aware of, and others (especially lurkers) may not be aware of. I'm not gonna get into this one, and I try to stay otu of it (often unsuccessfully), but suffice to say, there's a lot of thread history involved in this. we certainly agree on this, but i think we disagree on which of us this makes look stupid in this instance.
You're being a little obtuse if you can't insinuate anything out of Danglars quoting an argument that Hillary was guilty of committing a crime because of gross negligence.
|
OMFG stop this Gross Negligence argument without citing case law. Zero cites === zero argument.
This is the definitive piece on the application of the 793(f) gross negligence standard under the Espionage Act. TLDR: the courts have construed 'gross negligence' to require bad faith intent (aka scienter).
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
The controlling case is Gorin v. United States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html
But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. [Footnote 14] Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood, be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government.
Literally zero civilians have ever been convicted 793(f) gross negligence. Only one was ever charged and the charged were plead down to not include 793(f).
Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
If you guys really want to play the post with zero citations game, go right ahead and keep being wrong.
|
the argument(and cited post. and cited article.) explicitly states using careful legal jargon to AVOID insinuating of any crimes being committed.
you insinuate it’s about committing a crime.
can you hold my hand through this one? i can’t get from a to b.
i am fully aware of XDaunts thoughts on locking her up. if Danglars wanted to quote one of those posts, he would’ve. he quoted a post explicitly detailing the difference in the words comey chose. Danglars paired it with an article showing Comey made that distinction intentionally.
forget it, i don’t need your help understanding the problem here..
|
On November 08 2017 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates. If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president. It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.” Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread. The thing I love is how it's painfully obvious you only read the titles of Coates's articles and writings.
That one was a very worthwhile full read.
But if pretending I didn’t read it helps you sleep at night, you do you. Particularly after coming back to excerpt a couple paragraphs for comment and commenting on a couple paragraphs that others had excerpted.
The entire article was a big fucking “this is what we talk about when we say the Left is fucked up on the topic of race.” If he was some random internet blogger (forum habit of “you only highlight random internet nobodies that make us look bad), i wouldn’t have read it a second or third time. If he was roundly dismissed by academics, it would serve less of a purpose now.
|
On November 08 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates. If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president. It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.” Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread.
You have some reading to do.
|
On November 08 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:37 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates. If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president. It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.” Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread. The thing I love is how it's painfully obvious you only read the titles of Coates's articles and writings. That one was a very worthwhile full read. But if pretending I didn’t read it helps you sleep at night, you do you. Particularly after coming back to excerpt a couple paragraphs for comment and commenting on a couple paragraphs that others had excerpted. The entire article was a big fucking “this is what we talk about when we say the Left is fucked up on the topic of race.” If he was some random internet blogger (forum habit of “you only highlight random internet nobodies that make us look bad), i wouldn’t have read it a second or third time. If he was roundly dismissed by academics, it would serve less of a purpose now.
By "the left" you mean black people and those who chose to listen to them?
|
On November 08 2017 05:40 Wulfey_LA wrote:OMFG stop this Gross Negligence argument without citing case law. Zero cites === zero argument. This is the definitive piece on the application of the 793(f) gross negligence standard under the Espionage Act. TLDR: the courts have construed 'gross negligence' to require bad faith intent (aka scienter). https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/The controlling case is Gorin v. United States. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.htmlShow nested quote +
But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. [Footnote 14] Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood, be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government.
Literally zero civilians have ever been convicted 793(f) gross negligence. Only one was ever charged and the charged were plead down to not include 793(f). Show nested quote +
Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
If you guys really want to play the post with zero citations game, go right ahead and keep being wrong.
Note that the above is only in regard to the Espionage Act.
You can be charged with Gross Negligence for things that have nothing to do with espionage.
|
Danglars is ignoring the discussions in this thread pertaining to Coates' article while doing such a poor job describing what's wrong with it that one can only assume that he's basically reading off a shitty op-ed cue card. Additionally, he's picked up on the Daunt man's strategy relative to abjectly unverifiable claims a la "the media I'm seeing hints at this crazy thing no one here realizes" or "critics haven't roundly dismissed this thing I dislike."
Best to just move on, folks 
On November 08 2017 05:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:40 Wulfey_LA wrote:OMFG stop this Gross Negligence argument without citing case law. Zero cites === zero argument. This is the definitive piece on the application of the 793(f) gross negligence standard under the Espionage Act. TLDR: the courts have construed 'gross negligence' to require bad faith intent (aka scienter). https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/The controlling case is Gorin v. United States. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html
But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. [Footnote 14] Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood, be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government.
Literally zero civilians have ever been convicted 793(f) gross negligence. Only one was ever charged and the charged were plead down to not include 793(f).
Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
If you guys really want to play the post with zero citations game, go right ahead and keep being wrong. Note that the above is only in regard to the Espionage Act. You can be charged with Gross Negligence for things that have nothing to do with espionage.
That's true, but federal negligence law is heavily hemmed in by statute in the vein of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Outside that, only statutorily created negligence causes of action a la the Espionage Act can be brought in federal court and the Supremacy Clause renders virtually all state-law negligence claims null. Basically, outside the FTCA and specific statutes, there isn't any way to go after a federal actor for negligence, gross or not.
|
On November 08 2017 05:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades. "Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace" “Only remember and examine history I think bears repeating.” Interesting take from somebody that hit post on Trump’s inauaguration speech. Next time win an election and I’ll won’t be caterwauling that you want to look back a year later on Hillary’s election victory and how love trumped hate. I posted it in response to your obvious gloating under the guise of providing "introspective." Once again, the difference between wen you and me is I'm honest about my bullshit. You just live to rub it people's faces and then act like a kicked puppy when someone calls you out. Or posts an article by Coates. If Coates was roundly dismissed as race-card moron, there would be little reason to post his articles. The problem is that people actually think Trump was the first white president. It should be obvious, but “Only remember history I think bears repeating” is a close relative of “Any time other people do it, its obviously to gloat.” Somebody missed the Obama presidential thread. You have some reading to do.
It’s the thesis and author’s conception of whiteness. He makes some pretty bold statements in the piece, you should give it a look. For my own record, you can tell me if you agree with the central contention or disagree. If he’s too extreme for your political views, I won’t see the need to continue to talk about him to you.
And I thank you for quoting and responding to me directly instead of in third person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
