WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:30 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
OK, I am done here. Sorry I offended you, bob.
I think my last post wasn't clear. I was treating your previous post as an apology and accepting it. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. [B]A crime requires intent.


[A]Correct
[B]Incorrect

Grade 50%

Fail!

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. [B]A crime requires intent.


[A]Correct
[B]Incorrect

Grade 50%

Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
Nevermind

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:15 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9163
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. [B]A crime requires intent.


[A]Correct
[B]Incorrect

Grade 50%

Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob


793f doesn't require intent

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21784
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

[A]Correct
[B]Incorrect

Grade 50%

Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob


793f doesn't require intent

Right, so Trump should be prosecuted under that section.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6272
Location: Montana
Bob Juch wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob


793f doesn't require intent

Right, so Trump should be prosecuted under that section.


Don't quit your day job, skippy.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.

Rick Castle is dreamy.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

[A]Correct
[B]Incorrect

Grade 50%

Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob


793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] 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." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] 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." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob[/quote]

Weren't a lot of Clinton's email (possibly containing such classified information, we may never know) lost or destroyed? Plus, because the servers were destroyed, we don't know who all received them, forwarded them, or to who. Also, Wiener was not cleared.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9163
Location: Location.Location.Location
(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 bot

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] 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." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob


Weren't a lot of Clinton's email (possibly containing such classified information, we may never know) lost or destroyed? Plus, because the servers were destroyed, we don't know who all received them, forwarded them, or to who. Also, Wiener was not cleared.
Secretary Clinton didn't permit Wiener to get anything. And the information in the e-mails wasn't destroyed. That provision is intended to cover situations like some idiot who does something incredibly stupid that results in destruction of, say, the one-time cipher pad.

And if you don't know (and can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt) that Secretary Clinton provided the e-mails to someone who wasn't supposed to get them (deliberately or otherwise), then you can't charge her with a crime for having done so.

And let's get real here. No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk. It's not like she revealed the location of our nuclear submarines to a hostile foreign government. That would have been a real problem. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk.


She was Secretary of State. If she was not communicating with people about top secret information that may put American lives in danger if it got out, she was not doing her job.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:05 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk.


She was Secretary of State. If she was not communicating with people about top secret information that may put American lives in danger if it got out, she was not doing her job.
The unsecured e-mail server was not her only means of communication. The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server. The issue arose because some got there anyway.

But this was a political issue because it supported the inference that as President, she wouldn't take sufficient care to protect classified information. Given what's actually happened with Donny in the White House (to the sound of a deafening Congressional silence), in retrospect that argument was a bad joke. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9163
Location: Location.Location.Location
Nevermind.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server.


Clear to you, but that is a really really low bar with regards to Clinton. In fact, I believe the bar is laying on the ground.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:06 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server.


Clear to you, but that is a really really low bar with regards to Clinton. In fact, I believe the bar is laying on the ground.
There were lots of e-mails to the effect of, "We can't discuss that subject via this e-mail." --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15234
And now Devin Nunes has admitted that the FBI did disclose in a footnote that some of the information in the Page warrant application was contained in a footnote. He now claims that the footnote wasn't calling sufficient attention to the fact.

Quote:
“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,”


As New York Magazine put it,

Quote:
Notice how “The FBI LIED about the Steele dossier” has been scaled back to, “The FBI did not highlight the truth about the Steele Dossier in the part of the application we bothered to read.” So now the main attack on the FBI is about font size.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... small.html

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:11 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9163
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob


Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15234
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob


Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.


The Republicans orchestrated the entire fiasco in the first place with Nunes' decision to publish a memo based on material he hadn't actually read. And, ever since he did that, the Republicans have had to walk back several of their claims, like the one about the FBI not informing the court about the political nature of some of the information.

"Purposeful jacking around" by the Democrats in this case probably means providing a far more accurate view of what's actually in the records.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9163
Location: Location.Location.Location
silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob


Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.


The Republicans orchestrated the entire fiasco in the first place with Nunes' decision to publish a memo based on material he hadn't actually read. And, ever since he did that, the Republicans have had to walk back several of their claims, like the one about the FBI not informing the court about the political nature of some of the information.

"Purposeful jacking around" by the Democrats in this case probably means providing a far more accurate view of what's actually in the records.


I shall respectfully disagree.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
But of course there's no way to know for sure because Donny released the memo he thought would help him while continuing to hide the memo he thinks will hurt him. It sure looks to me like an abuse of the classification process for political gain, triggered by Donny's insecurity because he knows he has lots to hide. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:19 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17144
Location: By the phone
Here is the Democratic memo. It sure looks like there was a reason the Republicans didn't want this one read at the same time as the memo that Donny had Devin Nunes ghost-write for him. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4131
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob78164 wrote:
Here is the Democratic memo. It sure looks like there was a reason the Republicans didn't want this one read at the same time as the memo that Donny had Devin Nunes ghost-write for him. --Bob
This memo debunks Nunes’s allegations, which were flimsy to begin with. The Trump campaign brought scrutiny on itself by employing so many advisors with with foreign business dealings. Trump supporters will still argue that the biased Justice Dept. looked for any pretext to go after Republicans, while giving Democrats with foreign connections a free pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9823
Location: In Texas of course!
jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Trump supporters will still argue that the biased Justice Dept. looked for any pretext to go after Republicans, while giving Democrats with foreign connections a free pass.

And they'd be correct.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.