|
Post by frazer on Aug 17, 2016 9:12:41 GMT -5
I suspect it's too late to try to bring a note of reason to this discussion but am I the only one who sees a problem with this sentence, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"? What I'm referring to is, ". . . evidence of potential violations . . . ". This is being discussed after the fact so I'm having a difficult time understanding why the word "potential" was used. To me that word refers to a likelihood that something will happen in the future. The evidence was reviewed. Either the AG feels that there was a violation of the law or he felt there wasn't. I don't see how he could have it both ways yet it also seems to be what he tried to do. That's what's wrong with the politicization of what is a criminal matter. It seems obvious to me that the statement is steeped in ambiguity. And our group is arguing about it as if it means something. In actuality it doesn't mean anything. The only thing I can hang my hat on is the assertion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary. For the record, whether Colin Powell broke the law with his handling of emails is a side issue that means little with regard to Hillary. In my view if Powell broke the law he should have been, or should be, prosecuted. Since he's already admitted it that seems like a slam dunk. People who break the law, regardless of who they are, ought to be brought to justice. Yes the Republicans look like idiots for not protesting about Powell. But that's also beside the point. I'm not privy to that actual evidence. All I have to go on is news stories. I saw on the other day that says a lawsuit has been filed charging Hillary with perjury because she made false statements about classified documents when she was deposed. If that's true, hang her and hang her high. If it's not, go after the sorry SOBs who filed the lawsuit. But whatever, just for God's sake get on with it. In the end someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. Once it's done it ought to be done. And in the final analysis, guess what? Regardless of the opinions expressed here, no one is going to ask us what we think. If you guys want to disagree, please go ahead. It may not have yet occurred to some of you but the person who disagrees with your point of view does not automatically qualify for the title of "rip roaring asshole". We often disagree with each other but how about doing it with just a little respect. This bunch is a lot smarter than that. There you go again with your common sense and well reasoned argument. I despair, I really do ;-)
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 17, 2016 9:44:56 GMT -5
In all but Strict Liability offences, intention (mens rea), or objective recklessness must be shown. If prosecutors conclude that those are unlikely to be provable, that is not a trivial conclusion.
Edit - Which offences are strict liability in the USA and legal standards for intention and objective recklessness in US law are not, admittedly, knowledge areas that I have any expertise in.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Aug 17, 2016 9:50:48 GMT -5
270 is the only number that matters now. When Hillary reaches that you all can call her madam President. Do you think she has the list of governments to be overthrown prepared now, or do they wait until the transition period before working that up? I'm thinking you'd get more traction if you said you had proof that Hillary was the shooter behind the grassy knoll. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 17, 2016 10:13:29 GMT -5
I'd like to see a list of the servicemen she plans to kill for political gain.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 17, 2016 10:33:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 17, 2016 11:20:39 GMT -5
Always fascinating how a thread about Trump always devolves into a desperate defense of attack on Hillary. That's got to mean something. Interesting, particularly since Hillary barely registered here until Hanners started defending her.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 17, 2016 12:07:58 GMT -5
Do you think she has the list of governments to be overthrown prepared now, or do they wait until the transition period before working that up? I'm thinking you'd get more traction if you said you had proof that Hillary was the shooter behind the grassy knoll. Heh. Seriously, you don't think Hillary is a war mongerer? The best thing (IMHO) that can be said of her in this regard is that it's not likely that she will engage in war mongering on the scale of Bush war mongering. But a cursory review of the Clinton record (Bill's as Pres and Hill's as SOS) makes it clear that they think they can bomb their way to a better world. #FeelTheJohnson
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 13:13:59 GMT -5
I suspect it's too late to try to bring a note of reason to this discussion but am I the only one who sees a problem with this sentence, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"? What I'm referring to is, ". . . evidence of potential violations . . . ". This is being discussed after the fact so I'm having a difficult time understanding why the word "potential" was used. To me that word refers to a likelihood that something will happen in the future. The evidence was reviewed. Either the AG feels that there was a violation of the law or he felt there wasn't. I don't see how he could have it both ways yet it also seems to be what he tried to do. That's what's wrong with the politicization of what is a criminal matter. It seems obvious to me that the statement is steeped in ambiguity. And our group is arguing about it as if it means something. In actuality it doesn't mean anything. The only thing I can hang my hat on is the assertion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary. There you go again with your common sense and well reasoned argument. I despair, I really do ;-) Many prosecutors, of whom many knowledgeable people would describe as reasonable, disagree with Comey and feel that he overstepped his bounds with this statement. They feel, like many insist concerning police officers shooting civilians, that perhaps they should have let a grand jury decide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 15:20:03 GMT -5
Interesting, particularly since Hillary barely registered here until Hanners started defending her. Double interesting since while some are interested in explaining and understanding the Trump phenomenon, no one is really promoting or defending Trump.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 17, 2016 16:47:27 GMT -5
Trump's odious statements have frequently sometimes been defended here.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 17, 2016 17:18:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 17, 2016 20:43:22 GMT -5
Trump cannot be defended. Nor should he be promoted. Trump has one thing and one thing only going for him; he's not Hillary. And he seems hell bent on sacrificing that.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Aug 18, 2016 8:05:03 GMT -5
I'm thinking you'd get more traction if you said you had proof that Hillary was the shooter behind the grassy knoll. Heh. Seriously, you don't think Hillary is a war mongerer? The best thing (IMHO) that can be said of her in this regard is that it's not likely that she will engage in war mongering on the scale of Bush war mongering. But a cursory review of the Clinton record (Bill's as Pres and Hill's as SOS) makes it clear that they think they can bomb their way to a better world. #FeelTheJohnson Seriously, no more of a warrior than anyone else in her position. I buy that she is pragmatic, and the Middle East is exporting war and terror, and that we have a military that will do its best to stop the bad guys. Not a recipe for peace no matter who is elected. Mike
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 18, 2016 10:07:23 GMT -5
Heh. Seriously, you don't think Hillary is a war mongerer? The best thing (IMHO) that can be said of her in this regard is that it's not likely that she will engage in war mongering on the scale of Bush war mongering. But a cursory review of the Clinton record (Bill's as Pres and Hill's as SOS) makes it clear that they think they can bomb their way to a better world. #FeelTheJohnson Seriously, no more of a warrior than anyone else in her position. I buy that she is pragmatic, and the Middle East is exporting war and terror, and that we have a military that will do its best to stop the bad guys. Not a recipe for peace no matter who is elected. Mike I guess it's time to sell my stock in Sudanese pharmaceutical plants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 10:11:12 GMT -5
This from my fishing and backpacking buddy here in Bakersfield:
We cannot turn our country over to a snarky teenage boy: I am voting for Hillary Clinton.
Though the flaws of Clinton and the other candidates may be legion, Donald Trump embodies virtually all of the character traits I do not want in a leader. As an attorney, I wouldn’t even want him managing a piece of important litigation, much less the United States of America.
The character traits I am talking about do not change week to week — they are core Trump. It doesn’t make any difference whether Trump “bounces” in the polls, or Clinton declines. I’ve seen enough; I will never vote for Donald Trump, and I will cast my vote in a way that best ensures that he will not win.
For me, like many Americans and fellow Republicans, Trump’s comments about the Khan family tore it. Like an unforgettable press photo which, once seen, is never forgotten, the Khan events froze an image of Trump in my mind that he cannot talk his way out of.
The frozen image is of a person who is strikingly immature, starting with — paraphrasing — “they hit me so I hit back.” Understanding that the Khans’ son, a Muslim, died in the heroic service of our country, and therefore the Khans are righteously upset about Trump’s call for a ban on all Muslims, Trump’s schoolyard reaction is not the response of a true leader. It makes no difference whether the Khans were also political theater.
Trump’s is the response of someone who lives in his own tower of prickly vanity.
It is the response of someone who brooks no criticism or even dissent — however worthy or morally righteous. “An attack is an attack,” which betrays a shallow, spoiled mind.
It is the response of someone who reacts before they think — utterly unacceptable for someone in control of the nuclear button; or for that matter, any important button or pen. Trump reddens under minimal pressure.
It is a response that grasps at straws: his statement that building a business is a “sacrifice,” made in the context of the Khan dispute, is as outrageous as it is childishly self-pitying.
And so on.
None of this has to do with whether Trump is “tough.” I’m sure he is. There is a difference, though, between being tough and being mean-spirited. In addition to his other job disqualifiers, Trump actually enjoys being cruel. And it pops out, constantly, even in shallow water, his habitat.
Like millions of Americans in all parties, I think the American culture and economy are gagging on an overdose of lawyer-induced political correctness. The fussy cult of victimhood, the entitlement mentality, the unwillingness to fault people for fear of offense, the pointless lawyer-feeding gauntlet of ineffective but expensive regulations — these are toxic, crippling problems that Americans, especially those in business, endure every day. They are severely undermining our country and our morale. They are the legacy of metastatic Democratic hand-wringing and favor-granting.
Trump taps into these problems extremely well. They deserve the sort of derisive, eye-rolling scorn and dismissive humor that Trump dishes out. Trump’s satire here is welcome; he’s sort of the Don Rickles of the right. I hope he keeps it up.
But while such unfiltered disdain has its place — an important place — in American society, in Trump’s case, wait long enough (usually not very long) and that rant will take a nasty, impetuous and personally cruel turn. I wouldn’t have voted for the late George Carlin for president of the United States, and I won’t vote for Donald Trump. Our problems — however severe -- can be solved with strong determination, class, poise and respect. “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Teddy Roosevelt.
But it doesn’t help to write in Lou Gehrig for president. A vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. I’m voting for Clinton.
Nile Kinney is a Bakersfield attorney. These opinions are his own and not those of his partners, colleagues, friends or probably all Bakersfield Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Aug 18, 2016 10:13:45 GMT -5
the Middle East is exporting war and terror, and that we have a military that will do its best to stop the bad guys. Mike Sheesh what's next? An NRA bumper sticker and a yellow ribbon on the Airstream?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 18, 2016 11:07:20 GMT -5
Like millions of Americans in all parties, I think the American culture and economy are gagging on an overdose of lawyer-induced political correctness. The fussy cult of victimhood, the entitlement mentality, the unwillingness to fault people for fear of offense, the pointless lawyer-feeding gauntlet of ineffective but expensive regulations — these are toxic, crippling problems that Americans, especially those in business, endure every day. They are severely undermining our country and our morale. They are the legacy of metastatic Democratic hand-wringing and favor-granting. Trump taps into these problems extremely well. They deserve the sort of derisive, eye-rolling scorn and dismissive humor that Trump dishes out. Trump’s satire here is welcome; he’s sort of the Don Rickles of the right. I hope he keeps it up. But while such unfiltered disdain has its place — an important place — in American society, in Trump’s case, wait long enough (usually not very long) and that rant will take a nasty, impetuous and personally cruel turn. I wouldn’t have voted for the late George Carlin for president of the United States, and I won’t vote for Donald Trump. Our problems — however severe -- can be solved with strong determination, class, poise and respect. “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Teddy Roosevelt. But it doesn’t help to write in Lou Gehrig for president. A vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. I’m voting for Clinton. As they say, if everyone who wishes for a legitimate 3rd party candidate would vote 3rd party, Gary Johnson would win. Your friend is very astute. Unfortunately Hillary represents the continuation of a system that is out of control. That system will continue until it collapses under its own weight. If we don't break it first. Of the 2 major party candidates it's much more likely that Trump will break the system. That's why he remains a legitimate alternative to business as usual. At least he can't do any worse. Feel the Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 18, 2016 11:55:12 GMT -5
That's the bottom line. We know Clinton will keep killing servicemen for her political gain. We think most likely Trump will kill servicemen for political gain.
Voting for Clinton is voting for murder. On the scale of which is worse for the US. Clinton is a ten and Trump is only a 5 or 6. Johnson a 2.
Feel the Johnson.
I won't be upset when Trump wins.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 18, 2016 12:14:51 GMT -5
Like millions of Americans in all parties, I think the American culture and economy are gagging on an overdose of lawyer-induced political correctness. The fussy cult of victimhood, the entitlement mentality, the unwillingness to fault people for fear of offense, the pointless lawyer-feeding gauntlet of ineffective but expensive regulations — these are toxic, crippling problems that Americans, especially those in business, endure every day. They are severely undermining our country and our morale. They are the legacy of metastatic Democratic hand-wringing and favor-granting. Trump taps into these problems extremely well. They deserve the sort of derisive, eye-rolling scorn and dismissive humor that Trump dishes out. Trump’s satire here is welcome; he’s sort of the Don Rickles of the right. I hope he keeps it up. But while such unfiltered disdain has its place — an important place — in American society, in Trump’s case, wait long enough (usually not very long) and that rant will take a nasty, impetuous and personally cruel turn. I wouldn’t have voted for the late George Carlin for president of the United States, and I won’t vote for Donald Trump. Our problems — however severe -- can be solved with strong determination, class, poise and respect. “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Teddy Roosevelt. But it doesn’t help to write in Lou Gehrig for president. A vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote for Trump. I’m voting for Clinton. As they say, if everyone who wishes for a legitimate 3rd party candidate would vote 3rd party, Gary Johnson would win. Your friend is very astute. Unfortunately Hillary represents the continuation of a system that is out of control. That system will continue until it collapses under its own weight. If we don't break it first. Of the 2 major party candidates it's much more likely that Trump will break the system. That's why he remains a legitimate alternative to business as usual. At least he can't do any worse. Feel the Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Aug 18, 2016 12:17:26 GMT -5
the Middle East is exporting war and terror, and that we have a military that will do its best to stop the bad guys. Mike Sheesh what's next? An NRA bumper sticker and a yellow ribbon on the Airstream? Nope. Single payer health care, reasonable background checks for gun owners, a Supreme Court that tilts left. That is what's next. Mike
|
|