Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[San Antone]

          Professional elites of every kind had better believe their judgment is superior. I certainly want people to be better at their jobs than some guy pulled in off the street, even if the luck of the draw is that the street person is intelligent and well educated.

Sure, Washington staffers are better at filing the right form for requisitioning office supplies or understanding the myriad procedure rules for covering your mouth before coughing in the House of Representatives.  But they are clueless about how to create jobs; something any small businessman knows more about.  Their audacity is thinking that their "solutions" will actually begin to solve our problems.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Was this on their honeymoon? Sorry, I had to say it.

There's this one too, which is even more provocative and absolutely disgusting:

That's the one I linked to I think...

There is also this one, not sure whether it is worse but makes him look like a pimp (just look at where his right hand is):



The fact that she still grew up normal has to be a kind of miracle.

OR this one where not only is he got his hands where they don't belong but also looking down her dress:

[Madiel]

My favorite debate moments were when Trump called Hillary "the devil" and promised to appoint a special prosecutor if elected.  That second one got him some votes, I'm sure.

Not from anyone who has any kind of understanding of the law, it didn't.

Oh wait, only professional elites care about what the law actually says, right? You know, those people called lawyers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The fact that she still grew up normal has to be a kind of miracle.

An assumption is being made here . . . .

Sing: "But my heart belongs to Daddy."

[PerfectWagnerite]

Wondering what that idiot Hannity is saying now.

[San Antone]

Not from anyone who has any kind of understanding of the law, it didn't.

Oh wait, only professional elites care about what the law actually says, right? You know, those people called lawyers.

There would nothing stopping President Trump from asking his Director of the FBI to re-open the investigation and to forward his recommendation to the Trump Attorney General (probably Chris Christie who is chomping at the bit to put Hillary under indictment).  There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute.  "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured.  Anyone with some knowledge of the law would know that:

Here is the felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Nope.  Nothing at all.  He just needs to win.

[Madiel]

There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute.  "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured. 

Aha. So finally, you answer the question I posed to you weeks ago. You ARE the kind of amateur lawyer that thinks that if "intent" isn't in the actual language then intent doesn't count.

Never mind all the judges and lawyers who will tell you otherwise, right?

[PerfectWagnerite]

There would nothing stopping President Trump from asking his Director of the FBI to re-open the investigation and to forward his recommendation to the Trump Attorney General (probably Chris Christie who is chomping at the bit to put Hillary under indictment).  There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute.  "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured.  Anyone with some knowledge of the law would know that:

Here is the felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Nope.  Nothing at all.  He just needs to win.

He won't do that if he wins. If he wins then Grandma is no longer important nor someone in his way and is thus not a political enemy. There would be no point in going after her, from a purely business point of view.

[San Antone]

Aha. So finally, you answer the question I posed to you weeks ago. You ARE the kind of amateur lawyer that thinks that if "intent" isn't in the actual language then intent doesn't count.

Never mind all the judges and lawyers who will tell you otherwise, right?

No. The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes).  Ask David Petraeus. 

There is always an element of discretion used when a prosecutor decides whether to indict a suspect: How costly the trial might be, how hard to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, etc.  The FBI chose, which was within their discretion, to recommend to the Justice Dept. not to indict.  A different FBI director could offer a different recommendation.

[Madiel]

No. The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes).  Ask David Petraeus. 

There is always an element of discretion used when a prosecutor decides whether to indict a suspect: How costly the trial might be, how hard to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, etc.  The FBI chose, which was within their discretion, to recommend to the Justice Dept. not to indict.  A different FBI director could offer a different recommendation.

There isn't space here to try and educate you in fundamental criminal law principles about intention, recklessness and negligence. Nor to explain how fundamentally different the Petraeus case is. Besides I have to get to work where I'll be paid for knowing far more about these things than you do.

[San Antone]

He won't do that if he wins. If he wins then Grandma is no longer important nor someone in his way and is thus not a political enemy. There would be no point in going after her, from a purely business point of view.

Maybe so.  But Trump can be vindictive.  I'm not saying he will, or even that I think he should, but when he said that during the debate, I could hear his supporters cheering him on. 

[San Antone]

There isn't space here to try and educate you in fundamental criminal law principles about intention, recklessness and negligence. Besides I have to get to work where I'll be paid for knowing far more about these things than you do.

Maybe it is different in Australia.  Before you get on your high horse why don't read the statute. 

18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

But it is neither here nor there, she was cleared by the FBI and is now an established fact.  I'll grant you it is not slam dunk but a case could be made.

[Madiel]

Maybe it is different in Australia.  Before you get on your high horse why don't read the statute.  But it is neither here nor there, she was essentially given a pass by the FBI and is now an established fact.

Only in your own brain.

You really, really have no clue, and the sad thing is that you know JUST enough to think you understand the law. Knowledge and intent matter, and it doesn't require those exact words to appear in an old statue, written in an old style, before it matters.

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-petraeus/

[San Antone]

Only in your own brain.

You really, really have no clue, and the sad thing is that you know JUST enough to think you understand the law. Knowledge and intent matter, and it doesn't require those exact words to appear in an old statue, written in an old style, before it matters.

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-petraeus/

As I said it is now an established fact that the FBI recommended no indictment.  There is no point in our arguing about it.  But, I could also post articles written by legal scholars who have a different opinion from yours and Fortune magazine.

[Madiel]

And I've read the statute. Months ago. I know it doesn't say anything about intent. The whole point of what I said to you a while ago and now is that reading one section of one statute is not enough to understand the role of intent in criminal law.

There's only, oh, a couple of centuries of judgements on the question of "mens rea" that you need to catch up on.

[Madiel]

The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes).  Ask David Petraeus. 

I'm quoting this again and bolding the part where you linked Petraeus with "no intent", just to demonstrate that you didn't even read the Forbes article. Which I picked because it was clearly written and straightforward.

[drogulus]

Sure, Washington staffers are better at filing the right form for requisitioning office supplies or understanding the myriad procedure rules for covering your mouth before coughing in the House of Representatives.  But they are clueless about how to create jobs; something any small businessman knows more about.  Their audacity is thinking that their "solutions" will actually begin to solve our problems.

     You confuse means and goals here. The political elites don't agree on when to use expertise on job creation except when the situation is dire. The nature of the emergency forces practice to conform to sound ideas, not the usual ones. When the worst of the crisis is past the level of fear subsides and normal ideas crowd back in.

     The expertise is there. How to create jobs is known. We do it whenever we need to badly enough. The biggest problem is using the knowledge for positive reasons and not only to avoid catastrophe.

[Karl Henning]

Meow!

https://www.youtube.com/v/_IGzuhOuz00

snopes.com is your friend, zb: http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/

[drogulus]

snopes.com is your friend, zb: http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/

    No, I hazard a guess that it's not. But I did refer to snopes in my own vastly superior comment on the misuse of this video snippet.

[Pat B]

Anyway I am surprised The Groper is still in it. People have gotten fired for saying/doing a lot less. Don Imus was fired for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed 'ho's" in a joke.

The Rutgers comment, not really the worst thing Imus ever said, may have been only a pretext for his cancellation. Regardless, it's easier to cancel an over-the-hill radio host than to replace a major-party presidential nominee in October.