Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You again reveal your misunderstanding of classified information. You believe that someone has to lose their life as the direct result of Hillary's compromised classified information. That is wrong. I was stating the known consequence of classified especially TS classified information falling into enemy hands. The FBI director stated the presence of TS information on her server. That is all that is needed in a prosecution.
You are making the same false argument that media does about Hillary's server being hacked or not. "There was no evidence that it was hacked so it's cool". Wrong. Whether the server was hacked or not or whether someone died or not as the result of Hillary's violation of classified information handling is NOT the point. Did anyone die as the result of the sailors photographs of the inside of a sub? Of course not. Did he go to jail for a year for photographing a classified Sub? You bet he did.
Red (see both "red" passages in the quoted comments above):
You are the one who asserted positively that, "People lose their lives because of it, for real,"...."it" being the mishandling of classified information. Accordingly, it appears you are the one who believes that.
Blue:
In determining whether to prosecute someone and gaining a conviction in a court of law, that there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence of actus and/or mens rea, as befits the requirements of the statue and precedents that one is to be charged with violating, is very much the point for why such a prosecution will fail.
How's this for mens rea?
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News
That is intent.
In a few words, it ranges from inconclusive to lousy to irrelevant for the sake of establishing mens rea in connection with Mrs. Clinton's clearly established actus rea in "email-gate."
Why are you citing a CBS News article that was last updated 8-Jan-2015? The FBI announced its recommendation not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton in July 2016 and they stated that they reviewed every single email from State and from Mrs. Clinton's email server, including emails that they reconstructed from "slack space" on Mrs. Clinton's server. The emails noted in the CBS News story were among those the FBI reviewed.
- The sentence before that sentence reads, "Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown."
- The sentence right after it reads, "It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information."
Are you telling us you know something about what constitutes solid evidence of mens rea that the FBI, along with its Director who is a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, does not? If so, I strongly suggest you reach out to the Attorney General and the President and share with them your understanding and information that shows the FBI Director to be incompetent as an attorney, and thus why he should never have been appointed as FBI Director, Deputy Attorney General and and U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of NY. Maybe they'll agree that you'd be better qualified than he for any of those jobs?
No, I simply demonstrated she had a propensity to tell people to remove headings and send information unsecured. The classified information that was turned over had that done. Makes you wonder how many of the deleted ones were the same or worse, they may have had the classifications on them. Try Gowdy showed Comey several instances that demonstrated intent in her actions, Gowdy is an experienced prosecutor. Gross negligence was clearly demonstrated in the presser, intent was established by Gowdy and her own words, Comey was dactylic in his duty not recommending the evidence not be presented to a grand jury. The outcome was predetermined, it's that simple.
Green:
One event does not "propensity" make. Surely you can cull from your own mistakes and/or wrongdoings at least one example whereby the act you committed is not representative of what you'd routinely and as a matter of course do? I certainly can do so of my own errs.
It may be nice, certainly ideal, to expect perfection of our elected and appointed leaders. Truly, I'm more inclined to raise than lower bars. Even so, I'm at least willing to be reasonable to the extent that I will not on the basis of a single event, the actual context and substance of which remain unknown, damn or risk inferentially disparaging someone by charging them with a criminal offense when there's but one dubious at best piece of information that may be indicative of their intent.
Red:
Have you considered that among prosecutors, there may be differing points of view regarding what does and does not constitute strong evidence of intent? That one prosecutor leans one way and agrees with you and others do not does not indicate that anything is amiss with the nature of one's decision of whether to bring charges.
Blue:
Yes, Mr. Gowdy was a federal prosecutor -- staff level, not senior or mid level -- who served as such for a mere six years. (To put that in context, in private practice, it generally takes an attorney at least eight years to make partner, although nine or ten is far more typical.) He also served as a solicitor (a very different role than that of prosecutor) for the 7th Circuit, which means his scope of work was state law, not federal law; however, that position is elected not appointed. Thus there is no basis for thinking that typical voters have the first idea of whether his grasp of legal theory is superior or inferior to that of his opponent in that race, and yet a mastery of legal theory is what the job of solicitor is all about. (Lord only knows why that legal role in S.C. is elected rather than appointed....Indeed, it's not sound to me that some judgeships are elected positions.)
That said, I certainly agree he's an attorney, presumably at least a decent one of some degree for he passed the S.C. bar, although he's not an attorney of whom there is any demonstrable indication that his legal acumen is comparable to that of the myriad individuals who've been appointed to far weightier prosecutorial positions.
In spite of all that, the fact remains that he does not have the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge incumbent upon the man who was seated as the third ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. Indeed, thinking about Mr. Gowdy's command of legal theory, I could not help but wonder why he didn't pursue a line of questioning regarding the extent to which and why the email content the FBI discovered and recovered did not show intent.
That Dir. Comey, as one of the few remaining conservative intellectuals, has no particular good will toward Mrs. Clinton is yet another reason to doubt that there was any material degree of predetermination in the FBI's recommendation. In contrast, Mr. Gowdy has clear and not even thinly veiled animus toward Mrs. Clinton -- for cause or not, the jaundice is still there -- and given his elected position from a very "red" state, he's got no reason to be concerned about upholding any level of legal integrity, objectively, or neutrality when it comes to doing "whatever" to lessen her chances of becoming the next President.
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
"Ocala, Florida (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" because the scandal over her email server, comments that mark a major departure from the American political tradition.
The GOP nominee, firing up a large crowd of loyal supporters during a swing through Florida, also laid into the Democratic nominee over her health and seized on disclosures from hacked emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, released by Wikileaks."
I think Trump is getting a little carried away
She should have been charged. We all know that.
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
He's right...and the problem is......?
Nope, she should and so should Comey.
Nope, she should and so should Comey.
BS...
if Gowdy was the only former prosecutor or judge that held his opinion.
I'm aware of the one. Which document is it that identifies multiple instances of removed headers (How does a basic user even do that seeing as headers are elements of the encoding of an email rather than elements of user content in an email?) for which Mrs. Clinton suggested removing them and then sending the information via unsecured channels?Or there weren't actual classified emails that the headers were removed in the documents provided
I can put a lot of things together with the thinnest of threads as have so many who would see Mrs. Clinton charged for "email-gate." The thing is that prosecutors need more than thinly wound connections to make a case in a criminal trial. You see, prosecutors do not bring cases before the "court of public opinion."Put it all together
I am comfy in your ignorance kid.
if Gowdy was the only former prosecutor or judge that held his opinion.
Argumentum ad populum
I'm aware of the one. Which document is it that identifies multiple instances of removed headers (How does a basic user even do that seeing as headers are elements of the encoding of an email rather than elements of user content in an email?) for which Mrs. Clinton suggested removing them and then sending the information via unsecured channels?Or there weren't actual classified emails that the headers were removed in the documents provided
I can put a lot of things together with the thinnest of threads as have so many who would see Mrs. Clinton charged for "email-gate." The thing is that prosecutors need more than thinly wound connections to make a case in a criminal trial. You see, prosecutors do not bring cases before the "court of public opinion."Put it all together
Why does she belong in jail? Is it because of the email scandal or something elseI am comfy in your ignorance kid.
If you think she belongs in jail, then you don't know the law. So there is ignorance here, and it's not mine...
Agreed. Great post!Red (see both "red" passages in the quoted comments above):
You are the one who asserted positively that, "People lose their lives because of it, for real,"...."it" being the mishandling of classified information. Accordingly, it appears you are the one who believes that.
Blue:
In determining whether to prosecute someone and gaining a conviction in a court of law, that there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence of actus and/or mens rea, as befits the requirements of the statue and precedents that one is to be charged with violating, is very much the point for why such a prosecution will fail.
How's this for mens rea?
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News
That is intent.
In a few words, it ranges from inconclusive to lousy to irrelevant for the sake of establishing mens rea in connection with Mrs. Clinton's clearly established actus rea in "email-gate."
Why are you citing a CBS News article that was last updated 8-Jan-2015? The FBI announced its recommendation not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton in July 2016 and they stated that they reviewed every single email from State and from Mrs. Clinton's email server, including emails that they reconstructed from "slack space" on Mrs. Clinton's server. The emails noted in the CBS News story were among those the FBI reviewed.
- The sentence before that sentence reads, "Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown."
- The sentence right after it reads, "It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information."
Are you telling us you know something about what constitutes solid evidence of mens rea that the FBI, along with its Director who is a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, does not? If so, I strongly suggest you reach out to the Attorney General and the President and share with them your understanding and information that shows the FBI Director to be incompetent as an attorney, and thus why he should never have been appointed as FBI Director, Deputy Attorney General and and U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of NY. Maybe they'll agree that you'd be better qualified than he for any of those jobs?
No, I simply demonstrated she had a propensity to tell people to remove headings and send information unsecured. The classified information that was turned over had that done. Makes you wonder how many of the deleted ones were the same or worse, they may have had the classifications on them. Try Gowdy showed Comey several instances that demonstrated intent in her actions, Gowdy is an experienced prosecutor. Gross negligence was clearly demonstrated in the presser, intent was established by Gowdy and her own words, Comey was dactylic in his duty not recommending the evidence not be presented to a grand jury. The outcome was predetermined, it's that simple.
Green:
One event does not "propensity" make. Surely you can cull from your own mistakes and/or wrongdoings at least one example whereby the act you committed is not representative of what you'd routinely and as a matter of course do? I certainly can do so of my own errs.
It may be nice, certainly ideal, to expect perfection of our elected and appointed leaders. Truly, I'm more inclined to raise than lower bars. Even so, I'm at least willing to be reasonable to the extent that I will not on the basis of a single event, the actual context and substance of which remain unknown, damn or risk inferentially disparaging someone by charging them with a criminal offense when there's but one dubious at best piece of information that may be indicative of their intent.
Red:
Have you considered that among prosecutors, there may be differing points of view regarding what does and does not constitute strong evidence of intent? That one prosecutor leans one way and agrees with you and others do not does not indicate that anything is amiss with the nature of one's decision of whether to bring charges.
Blue:
Yes, Mr. Gowdy was a federal prosecutor -- staff level, not senior or mid level -- who served as such for a mere six years. (To put that in context, in private practice, it generally takes an attorney at least eight years to make partner, although nine or ten is far more typical.) He also served as a solicitor (a very different role than that of prosecutor) for the 7th Circuit, which means his scope of work was state law, not federal law; however, that position is elected not appointed. Thus there is no basis for thinking that typical voters have the first idea of whether his grasp of legal theory is superior or inferior to that of his opponent in that race, and yet a mastery of legal theory is what the job of solicitor is all about. (Lord only knows why that legal role in S.C. is elected rather than appointed....Indeed, it's not sound to me that some judgeships are elected positions.)
That said, I certainly agree he's an attorney, presumably at least a decent one of some degree for he passed the S.C. bar, although he's not an attorney of whom there is any demonstrable indication that his legal acumen is comparable to that of the myriad individuals who've been appointed to far weightier prosecutorial positions.
In spite of all that, the fact remains that he does not have the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge incumbent upon the man who was seated as the third ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. Indeed, thinking about Mr. Gowdy's command of legal theory, I could not help but wonder why he didn't pursue a line of questioning regarding the extent to which and why the email content the FBI discovered and recovered did not show intent.
That Dir. Comey, as one of the few remaining conservative intellectuals, has no particular good will toward Mrs. Clinton is yet another reason to doubt that there was any material degree of predetermination in the FBI's recommendation. In contrast, Mr. Gowdy has clear and not even thinly veiled animus toward Mrs. Clinton -- for cause or not, the jaundice is still there -- and given his elected position from a very "red" state, he's got no reason to be concerned about upholding any level of legal integrity, objectively, or neutrality when it comes to doing "whatever" to lessen her chances of becoming the next President.
Well you might have a point with all the deflections if Gowdy was the only former prosecutor or judge that held his opinion. Or there weren't actual classified emails that the headers were removed in the documents provided, or she had not destroyed evidence under subpoena or not lied to congress. Put it all together you have enough evidence to proceed to a grand jury. Deal with it, or just move on back to your fantasy land.
I am comfy in your ignorance kid.
If you think she belongs in jail, then you don't know the law. So there is ignorance here, and it's not mine...
I am comfy in your ignorance kid.
If you think she belongs in jail, then you don't know the law. So there is ignorance here, and it's not mine...
(smile) Sure thing kid.
true ladI am comfy in your ignorance kid.
If you think she belongs in jail, then you don't know the law. So there is ignorance here, and it's not mine...
(smile) Sure thing kid.
Well at least you know, Lad...
I am comfy in your ignorance kid.
If you think she belongs in jail, then you don't know the law. So there is ignorance here, and it's not mine...
(smile) Sure thing kid.
Well at least you know, Lad...
Comey made it clear that Hillary lied and admitted that she indeed sent and received VERY sensitive things.
Go get you some Hillary jizz boy.
he studies lawComey made it clear that Hillary lied and admitted that she indeed sent and received VERY sensitive things.
Go get you some Hillary jizz boy.
As I said, and reiterate, you obviously don't know the law...
good post agreedRed (see both "red" passages in the quoted comments above):
You are the one who asserted positively that, "People lose their lives because of it, for real,"...."it" being the mishandling of classified information. Accordingly, it appears you are the one who believes that.
Blue:
In determining whether to prosecute someone and gaining a conviction in a court of law, that there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence of actus and/or mens rea, as befits the requirements of the statue and precedents that one is to be charged with violating, is very much the point for why such a prosecution will fail.
How's this for mens rea?
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News
That is intent.
In a few words, it ranges from inconclusive to lousy to irrelevant for the sake of establishing mens rea in connection with Mrs. Clinton's clearly established actus rea in "email-gate."
Why are you citing a CBS News article that was last updated 8-Jan-2015? The FBI announced its recommendation not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton in July 2016 and they stated that they reviewed every single email from State and from Mrs. Clinton's email server, including emails that they reconstructed from "slack space" on Mrs. Clinton's server. The emails noted in the CBS News story were among those the FBI reviewed.
- The sentence before that sentence reads, "Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown."
- The sentence right after it reads, "It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information."
Are you telling us you know something about what constitutes solid evidence of mens rea that the FBI, along with its Director who is a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, does not? If so, I strongly suggest you reach out to the Attorney General and the President and share with them your understanding and information that shows the FBI Director to be incompetent as an attorney, and thus why he should never have been appointed as FBI Director, Deputy Attorney General and and U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of NY. Maybe they'll agree that you'd be better qualified than he for any of those jobs?
No, I simply demonstrated she had a propensity to tell people to remove headings and send information unsecured. The classified information that was turned over had that done. Makes you wonder how many of the deleted ones were the same or worse, they may have had the classifications on them. Try Gowdy showed Comey several instances that demonstrated intent in her actions, Gowdy is an experienced prosecutor. Gross negligence was clearly demonstrated in the presser, intent was established by Gowdy and her own words, Comey was dactylic in his duty not recommending the evidence not be presented to a grand jury. The outcome was predetermined, it's that simple.
Green:
One event does not "propensity" make. Surely you can cull from your own mistakes and/or wrongdoings at least one example whereby the act you committed is not representative of what you'd routinely and as a matter of course do? I certainly can do so of my own errs.
It may be nice, certainly ideal, to expect perfection of our elected and appointed leaders. Truly, I'm more inclined to raise than lower bars. Even so, I'm at least willing to be reasonable to the extent that I will not on the basis of a single event, the actual context and substance of which remain unknown, damn or risk inferentially disparaging someone by charging them with a criminal offense when there's but one dubious at best piece of information that may be indicative of their intent.
Red:
Have you considered that among prosecutors, there may be differing points of view regarding what does and does not constitute strong evidence of intent? That one prosecutor leans one way and agrees with you and others do not does not indicate that anything is amiss with the nature of one's decision of whether to bring charges.
Blue:
Yes, Mr. Gowdy was a federal prosecutor -- staff level, not senior or mid level -- who served as such for a mere six years. (To put that in context, in private practice, it generally takes an attorney at least eight years to make partner, although nine or ten is far more typical.) He also served as a solicitor (a very different role than that of prosecutor) for the 7th Circuit, which means his scope of work was state law, not federal law; however, that position is elected not appointed. Thus there is no basis for thinking that typical voters have the first idea of whether his grasp of legal theory is superior or inferior to that of his opponent in that race, and yet a mastery of legal theory is what the job of solicitor is all about. (Lord only knows why that legal role in S.C. is elected rather than appointed....Indeed, it's not sound to me that some judgeships are elected positions.)
That said, I certainly agree he's an attorney, presumably at least a decent one of some degree for he passed the S.C. bar, although he's not an attorney of whom there is any demonstrable indication that his legal acumen is comparable to that of the myriad individuals who've been appointed to far weightier prosecutorial positions.
In spite of all that, the fact remains that he does not have the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge incumbent upon the man who was seated as the third ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. Indeed, thinking about Mr. Gowdy's command of legal theory, I could not help but wonder why he didn't pursue a line of questioning regarding the extent to which and why the email content the FBI discovered and recovered did not show intent.
That Dir. Comey, as one of the few remaining conservative intellectuals, has no particular good will toward Mrs. Clinton is yet another reason to doubt that there was any material degree of predetermination in the FBI's recommendation. In contrast, Mr. Gowdy has clear and not even thinly veiled animus toward Mrs. Clinton -- for cause or not, the jaundice is still there -- and given his elected position from a very "red" state, he's got no reason to be concerned about upholding any level of legal integrity, objectively, or neutrality when it comes to doing "whatever" to lessen her chances of becoming the next President.
Well you might have a point with all the deflections if Gowdy was the only former prosecutor or judge that held his opinion. Or there weren't actual classified emails that the headers were removed in the documents provided, or she had not destroyed evidence under subpoena or not lied to congress. Put it all together you have enough evidence to proceed to a grand jury. Deal with it, or just move on back to your fantasy land.
