WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:05 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Avoiding the question, just like bob. Why don't the questions about Hillary bother you as much as the ones about trump? Do you have any answers that I missed?

The questions about Hillary don't bother me as much as the ones about trump because she's not in the White House.

Of course not. Not one of you has bothered to address the main point, because none if you have any answers either. But it's ok with you because she's a member if the political party you prefer. Now go run along.
Flock, you've ignored the numerous factual refutations of the false accusations against Secretary Clinton so often that it's obvious you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend a substantive answer. And she's a private citizen now in no position to harm the Republic.

Donny has real power and it takes willful blindness not to see that he's more than willing to abuse it, to the lasting harm of our democracy. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
The questions about Hillary don't bother me as much as the ones about trump because she's not in the White House.

Of course not. Not one of you has bothered to address the main point, because none if you have any answers either. But it's ok with you because she's a member if the political party you prefer. Now go run along.
Flock, you've ignored the numerous factual refutations of the false accusations against Secretary Clinton so often that it's obvious you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend a substantive answer. And she's a private citizen now in no position to harm the Republic.

Donny has real power and it takes willful blindness not to see that he's more than willing to abuse it, to the lasting harm of our democracy. --Bob


Give me the answer to at least one of the questions I posed. Just one? Loretta and Bill were talking about their grandchildren? That's the factual refutation?
I must have missed the factual refutations for all of those questions. Hannity never told me. Can you?

I don't care if she's a private citizen. I would like to know what the 'factual refutations' of all those questions are. The answers, not that she somehow evaded being charged. Trump may avoid being charged with anything. I'm sure that won't persuade you that he's not guilty. Please enlighten me with what the answers actually are, counselor. And use facts, not hearsay.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
The questions about Hillary don't bother me as much as the ones about trump because she's not in the White House.

Of course not. Not one of you has bothered to address the main point, because none if you have any answers either. But it's ok with you because she's a member if the political party you prefer. Now go run along.
Flock, you've ignored the numerous factual refutations of the false accusations against Secretary Clinton so often that it's obvious you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend a substantive answer. And she's a private citizen now in no position to harm the Republic.

Donny has real power and it takes willful blindness not to see that he's more than willing to abuse it, to the lasting harm of our democracy. --Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Of course not. Not one of you has bothered to address the main point, because none if you have any answers either. But it's ok with you because she's a member if the political party you prefer. Now go run along.
Flock, you've ignored the numerous factual refutations of the false accusations against Secretary Clinton so often that it's obvious you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend a substantive answer. And she's a private citizen now in no position to harm the Republic.

Donny has real power and it takes willful blindness not to see that he's more than willing to abuse it, to the lasting harm of our democracy. --Bob


Give me the answer to at least one of the questions I posed. Just one? Loretta and Bill were talking about their grandchildren? That's the factual refutation?
I must have missed the factual refutations for all of those questions. Hannity never told me. Can you?

I don't care if she's a private citizen. I would like to know what the 'factual refutations' of all those questions are. The answers, not that she somehow evaded being charged. Trump may avoid being charged with anything. I'm sure that won't persuade you that he's not guilty. Please enlighten me with what the answers actually are, counselor. And use facts, not hearsay.
Just one? Fine. Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent. Your military people are wrong if they're telling you otherwise. It might well give rise to administrative sanctions, but since Secretary Clinton was already a private citizen, there weren't any available.

And by the way, I've spoken to at least one friend who had enough clearance to know the content of those e-mails. What we're talking about here is overclassification run rampant. For example, the observation of foreign governments concerning our drone program (which had already aired in the press) was deemed classified by the Defense Department (even though the foreign governments were an independent source for the information, and even though the program had already received extensive press coverage) because as far as DoD was concerned, all references to the drone program were classified.

It's not remotely similar to, say, disclosing the location of our nuclear submarines to the Russian government. Now that would be truly dangerous to our national security. Yet I don't recall hearing a peep out of you when Donny did exactly that. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Flock, you've ignored the numerous factual refutations of the false accusations against Secretary Clinton so often that it's obvious you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend a substantive answer. And she's a private citizen now in no position to harm the Republic.

Donny has real power and it takes willful blindness not to see that he's more than willing to abuse it, to the lasting harm of our democracy. --Bob


Give me the answer to at least one of the questions I posed. Just one? Loretta and Bill were talking about their grandchildren? That's the factual refutation?
I must have missed the factual refutations for all of those questions. Hannity never told me. Can you?

I don't care if she's a private citizen. I would like to know what the 'factual refutations' of all those questions are. The answers, not that she somehow evaded being charged. Trump may avoid being charged with anything. I'm sure that won't persuade you that he's not guilty. Please enlighten me with what the answers actually are, counselor. And use facts, not hearsay.
Just one? Fine. Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent. Your military people are wrong if they're telling you otherwise. It might well give rise to administrative sanctions, but since Secretary Clinton was already a private citizen, there weren't any available.

And by the way, I've spoken to at least one friend who had enough clearance to know the content of those e-mails. What we're talking about here is overclassification run rampant. For example, the observation of foreign governments concerning our drone program (which had already aired in the press) was deemed classified by the Defense Department (even though the foreign governments were an independent source for the information, and even though the program had already received extensive press coverage) because as far as DoD was concerned, all references to the drone program were classified.

It's not remotely similar to, say, disclosing the location of our nuclear submarines to the Russian government. Now that would be truly dangerous to our national security. Yet I don't recall hearing a peep out of you when Donny did exactly that. --Bob


Hmmm, No facts here bob. Just opinions and incorrect information. I thought you and SSS only spouted facts.

It has also been reported. bob, that "Gross Negligence" in handling classified material IS a crime. In addition, it has been reported that the inimitable Peter Strzok (who reminds me of you) changed the words 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless' in Comey's exoneration speech, which conveniently sidesteps the exact words in the statute. Reminds me that you need to know what the 'meaning of is is'.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/cnn_fbi_agent_strzok_changed_comeys_clinton_language_from_grossly_negligent_to_extremely_careless.html

I'm glad your friend is of the OPINION that it was a case of over-classification. He is entitled to that opinion, but he apparently admits that the DoD still considers it classified, whether Hillary or your friend might disagree. And I could be wrong, but I don't think drones were the only classified subject on Hillary's server. We'll probably never know all of it, because she destroyed thousands of emails that were requested of her. (maybe subpoenaed)

The President has the right to declassify anything he wants to, whether it's prudent or not in your opinion.

ADDED: In addition, counselor, GROSS NEGLIGENCE does not require intent. As the author of this article put it, and I tend to agree with him:
The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

The people I've spoken to tell me that if they accidentally took classified information off their sub, or out of their office, they would end up in jail. I don't think the military puts much stock in excuses.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook


Please, counselor, try and do better than this. It does not answer my question. I know it's hard, because you don't have the answers either, but just admit it rather than trying to convolute it to validate your narrative.


Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Give me the answer to at least one of the questions I posed. Just one? Loretta and Bill were talking about their grandchildren? That's the factual refutation?
I must have missed the factual refutations for all of those questions. Hannity never told me. Can you?

I don't care if she's a private citizen. I would like to know what the 'factual refutations' of all those questions are. The answers, not that she somehow evaded being charged. Trump may avoid being charged with anything. I'm sure that won't persuade you that he's not guilty. Please enlighten me with what the answers actually are, counselor. And use facts, not hearsay.
Just one? Fine. Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent. Your military people are wrong if they're telling you otherwise. It might well give rise to administrative sanctions, but since Secretary Clinton was already a private citizen, there weren't any available.

And by the way, I've spoken to at least one friend who had enough clearance to know the content of those e-mails. What we're talking about here is overclassification run rampant. For example, the observation of foreign governments concerning our drone program (which had already aired in the press) was deemed classified by the Defense Department (even though the foreign governments were an independent source for the information, and even though the program had already received extensive press coverage) because as far as DoD was concerned, all references to the drone program were classified.

It's not remotely similar to, say, disclosing the location of our nuclear submarines to the Russian government. Now that would be truly dangerous to our national security. Yet I don't recall hearing a peep out of you when Donny did exactly that. --Bob


It has also been reported. bob, that "Gross Negligence" in handling classified material IS a crime. In addition, it has been reported that the inimitable Peter Strzok (who reminds me of you) changed the words 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless' in Comey's exoneration speech, which conveniently sidesteps the exact words in the statute. Reminds me that you need to know what the 'meaning of is is'.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/cnn_fbi_agent_strzok_changed_comeys_clinton_language_from_grossly_negligent_to_extremely_careless.html

I'm glad you friend is of the OPINION that it was a case of over-classification. He is entitled to that opinion, but he apparently admits that the DoD still considers it classified, whether Hillary or your friend might disagree. And I could be wrong, but I don't think drones were the only classified subject on Hillary's server. We'll probably never know all of it, because she destroyed thousands of emails that were requested of her. (maybe subpoenaed)

The President has the right to declassify anything he wants to, whether it's prudent or not, in your opinion.

ADDED: In addition, counselor, GROSS NEGLIGENCE does not require intent. As the author of this article put it, and I tend to agree with him:
The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

The people I've spoken to tell me that if they accidentally took classified information off their sub, they would end up in jail. I don't think the military puts much stock in excuses.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... llary-hook


Please, counselor, try and do better than this. It does not answer my question.
Actually, it did. It's my professional opinion, having actually read the statute, that negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act. (The words of a statute, by the way, are a fact that I would hope we can agree on.) You don't like my answer so you're ignoring it. Try explaining to me why a statute that requires willful and intentional conduct permits criminal liability for conduct falling short of that standard. You can't because it doesn't.

And it may have been legal for Donny to give away some of the nation's most closely guarded military secrets. But that doesn't make it any less harmful. I can promise you that if President Clinton had done so, the present Congress would have impeached her for it. They'd even have had a fighting chance of removing her. The only reason this isn't still in the headlines is that Republican office-holders are more interested in personal power than in protecting the nation. Unforgivable, but that's where we are. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15475
Bob78164 wrote:
negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act. (The words of a statute, by the way, are a fact that I would hope we can agree on.)


I wonder if it's negligence to leave confidential documents about possible government responses to a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl lying around on a commercial airliner where a CNN reporter or possibly a terrorist might find them.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/us/dhs-s ... index.html

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:35 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Oh, by the way, according to Rep. Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, the application did, in fact, disclose that the Steele dossier likely had a political motivation. So the central premise of the Nunes memo -- that this information was hidden from the court that granted the application -- is a lie. --Bob


bob, as happens with most disputes in the swamp. SOMEONE IS LYING. One side says one thing and the other side says the opposite. That is why I trust NOTHING that comes out of Washington. Someone is always lying. Your assertation above says that Schiff said they did know, while the Nunes memo says they didn't know. The article you cite comes, surprise, from 'unnamed sources familiar with...'. That is not proof of anything, sir. It is just hearsay. So I don't know who's telling the truth, and guess what? Neither do you. Until someone comes up with concrete evidence one way or another, none of us will KNOW. And that's the way they like it in Washington D.C.
You keep telling me you present me with facts, and I am just parroting someone or another. But I know the difference between fact and opinion, and I don't take anything I read on the internet as fact. You would do well to do the same, sir.
The New York Times is doing its best to let us see for ourselves. The paper has filed a motion with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to unseal the application.

Also, Nunes has now admitted that the FBI did, in fact, acknowledge the political origin of the dossier. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
It's my professional opinion, having actually read the statute, that negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act.

Try explaining to me why a statute that requires willful and intentional conduct permits criminal liability for conduct falling short of that standard. You can't because it doesn't.


Thank you for that, bob. It's many other attorney's professional opinions that it does. And relying on common sense, nobody plans to be grossly negligent. They just are. There is no intent involved. They are responsible for the consequences.

Your second challenge to me relies on my acceptance of YOUR professional opinion to be true. Sorry, but I don't. While I respect your opinion, I respect it only to the point that I would respect Peter Strzok's or Lisa Page's opinion on the matter. You are biased by your own admission, and, as I said, I don't think you are a very good lawyer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act. (The words of a statute, by the way, are a fact that I would hope we can agree on.)


I wonder if it's negligence to leave confidential documents about possible government responses to a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl lying around on a commercial airliner where a CNN reporter or possibly a terrorist might find them.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/us/dhs-s ... index.html


I would think so. The article says DHS does not comment on personnel actions, so we don't know what is going to happen to the guy. I would hope he gets some kind of penalty. Of course, it depends whether he is a democrat running for President or not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's my professional opinion, having actually read the statute, that negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act.

Try explaining to me why a statute that requires willful and intentional conduct permits criminal liability for conduct falling short of that standard. You can't because it doesn't.


Thank you for that, bob. It's many other attorney's professional opinions that it does. And relying on common sense, nobody plans to be grossly negligent. They just are. There is no intent involved. They are responsible for the consequences.

Your second challenge to me relies on my acceptance of YOUR professional opinion to be true. Sorry, but I don't. While I respect your opinion, I respect it only to the point that I would respect Peter Strzok's or Lisa Page's opinion on the matter. You are biased by your own admission, and, as I said, I don't think you are a very good lawyer.
No, actually I pointed you to the statute and asked you to explain to me why it doesn't mean what it plainly says. You can't, of course, because (like all criminal statutes) it means what it says.

As for your opinion of my legal skills, my partners disagree. So do my clients. And opposing counsel. And the judges I appear before. But they have actual evidence of my legal skills.

Find me an attorney who thinks the statute I cited imposes criminal liability for a negligent act, and you really will have found a bad attorney. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's my professional opinion, having actually read the statute, that negligence (even gross negligence) does not meet the statutory definition necessary for a criminal act.

Try explaining to me why a statute that requires willful and intentional conduct permits criminal liability for conduct falling short of that standard. You can't because it doesn't.


Thank you for that, bob. It's many other attorney's professional opinions that it does. And relying on common sense, nobody plans to be grossly negligent. They just are. There is no intent involved. They are responsible for the consequences.

Your second challenge to me relies on my acceptance of YOUR professional opinion to be true. Sorry, but I don't. While I respect your opinion, I respect it only to the point that I would respect Peter Strzok's or Lisa Page's opinion on the matter. You are biased by your own admission, and, as I said, I don't think you are a very good lawyer.
No, actually I pointed you to the statute and asked you to explain to me why it doesn't mean what it plainly says. You can't, of course, because (like all criminal statutes) it means what it says.

As for your opinion of my legal skills, my partners disagree. So do my clients. And opposing counsel. And the judges I appear before. But they have actual evidence of my legal skills.

Find me an attorney who thinks the statute I cited imposes criminal liability for a negligent act, and you really will have found a bad attorney. --Bob


Wasn't hard to find, bob. Look at section f. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me. Is it valid? I don't know. It seems like it would apply to negligently supplying classified information about drones. They are part of national defense, I would assume.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:34 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Thank you for that, bob. It's many other attorney's professional opinions that it does. And relying on common sense, nobody plans to be grossly negligent. They just are. There is no intent involved. They are responsible for the consequences.

Your second challenge to me relies on my acceptance of YOUR professional opinion to be true. Sorry, but I don't. While I respect your opinion, I respect it only to the point that I would respect Peter Strzok's or Lisa Page's opinion on the matter. You are biased by your own admission, and, as I said, I don't think you are a very good lawyer.
No, actually I pointed you to the statute and asked you to explain to me why it doesn't mean what it plainly says. You can't, of course, because (like all criminal statutes) it means what it says.

As for your opinion of my legal skills, my partners disagree. So do my clients. And opposing counsel. And the judges I appear before. But they have actual evidence of my legal skills.

Find me an attorney who thinks the statute I cited imposes criminal liability for a negligent act, and you really will have found a bad attorney. --Bob


Wasn't hard to find, bob. Look at section f. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me. Is it valid? I don't know. It seems like it would apply to negligently supplying classified information about drones. They are part of national defense, I would assume.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
All of which apply to physical instrumentalities and none of which apply to the information in an e-mail. If through gross negligence you move a code book somewhere it's not supposed to be, you've got a problem.

And all of this is completely beside the point. Secretary Clinton is a private citizen. Donny is a danger to the Republic. Nunes has now admitted that he lied in his report, thereby abusing his position as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. They're the ones in power now. They're the ones who need to be held accountable. --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: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4212
Location: Merion, Pa.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Huma Abedin passed classified information to her husband, a sex offender, who at the time was very susceptible to black mail? Why isn't she in jail?
The emails were in backups of Abedin's cell phone on Weiner's computer. There's no evidence that Weiner saw them, or even could have (he'd have to know Abedin's password or hack the backup). The blackmail threat is more problematic; he could have secretly turned over the laptop to an adversary. If he had, he (possibly both of them) would be in jail. But as far as we know, Weiner's a scumbag but not a traitor.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Hillary Clinton was guilty of extreme carelessness (otherwise known as gross negligence) in handling classified material. It is pretty much a given that anyone else would have been charged with a crime.
I worked with highly classified data every day for thirty years. People were reprimanded, or even fired, for mishandling classified material (much worse than what Clinton did), but nobody's ever charged with a crime for carelessness.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why did Hillary tell her daughter and a few other people that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but everyone else that it was because of some video no one ever saw? I never got a plausible explanation for that one, only that it didn't make any difference. Did you get a plausible explanation for that? If you did, please clue me in.
There were conflicting intelligence reports on whether the attack was triggered by the video or by conflicts between Libyan militias. But everyone agreed that it was terrorism.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why does James Comey go unpunished for leaking confidential information to the press in order to jump start a special prosecution?
As FBI director, Comey had lots of discretion about what to reveal, just as Clinton did and Trump does now. He was fired, (opinion alert) a worse punishment than he deserved.

I tried to stick to the facts and leave bias out of it. You know from all my posts that I try to be fair. But when you make accusations, remember that you're the one who needs facts to make them stick. The accused, even if it's Clinton or Trump, doesn't have to prove they're false.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9928
Location: In Texas of course!
jarnon wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Huma Abedin passed classified information to her husband, a sex offender, who at the time was very susceptible to black mail? Why isn't she in jail?
The emails were in backups of Abedin's cell phone on Weiner's computer. There's no evidence that Weiner saw them, or even could have (he'd have to know Abedin's password or hack the backup). The blackmail threat is more problematic; he could have secretly turned over the laptop to an adversary. If he had, he (possibly both of them) would be in jail. But as far as we know, Weiner's a scumbag but not a traitor.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Hillary Clinton was guilty of extreme carelessness (otherwise known as gross negligence) in handling classified material. It is pretty much a given that anyone else would have been charged with a crime.
I worked with highly classified data every day for thirty years. People were reprimanded, or even fired, for mishandling classified material (much worse than what Clinton did), but nobody's ever charged with a crime for carelessness.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why did Hillary tell her daughter and a few other people that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but everyone else that it was because of some video no one ever saw? I never got a plausible explanation for that one, only that it didn't make any difference. Did you get a plausible explanation for that? If you did, please clue me in.
There were conflicting intelligence reports on whether the attack was triggered by the video or by conflicts between Libyan militias. But everyone agreed that it was terrorism.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why does James Comey go unpunished for leaking confidential information to the press in order to jump start a special prosecution?
As FBI director, Comey had lots of discretion about what to reveal, just as Clinton did and Trump does now. He was fired, (opinion alert) a worse punishment than he deserved.

I tried to stick to the facts and leave bias out of it. You know from all my posts that I try to be fair. But when you make accusations, remember that you're the one who needs facts to make them stick. The accused, even if it's Clinton or Trump, doesn't have to prove they're false.


When did you start working for the DNC?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Posts: 5282
Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
BackInTex wrote:
jarnon wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Huma Abedin passed classified information to her husband, a sex offender, who at the time was very susceptible to black mail? Why isn't she in jail?
The emails were in backups of Abedin's cell phone on Weiner's computer. There's no evidence that Weiner saw them, or even could have (he'd have to know Abedin's password or hack the backup). The blackmail threat is more problematic; he could have secretly turned over the laptop to an adversary. If he had, he (possibly both of them) would be in jail. But as far as we know, Weiner's a scumbag but not a traitor.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Hillary Clinton was guilty of extreme carelessness (otherwise known as gross negligence) in handling classified material. It is pretty much a given that anyone else would have been charged with a crime.
I worked with highly classified data every day for thirty years. People were reprimanded, or even fired, for mishandling classified material (much worse than what Clinton did), but nobody's ever charged with a crime for carelessness.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why did Hillary tell her daughter and a few other people that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but everyone else that it was because of some video no one ever saw? I never got a plausible explanation for that one, only that it didn't make any difference. Did you get a plausible explanation for that? If you did, please clue me in.
There were conflicting intelligence reports on whether the attack was triggered by the video or by conflicts between Libyan militias. But everyone agreed that it was terrorism.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why does James Comey go unpunished for leaking confidential information to the press in order to jump start a special prosecution?
As FBI director, Comey had lots of discretion about what to reveal, just as Clinton did and Trump does now. He was fired, (opinion alert) a worse punishment than he deserved.

I tried to stick to the facts and leave bias out of it. You know from all my posts that I try to be fair. But when you make accusations, remember that you're the one who needs facts to make them stick. The accused, even if it's Clinton or Trump, doesn't have to prove they're false.


When did you start working for the DNC?


I don't believe he ever has. He has stated facts, as flock requested. Which part of this post is false, or biased in favor of the DNC? He even flagged the part of his post that was opinion, which is better than most of us ever do.

_________________
The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand. -- Richard Feynman, "What do you Care what other People Think?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:20 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15475
The House panel votes to release the Democratic rebuttal to Nunes' memo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 307458002/

It now goes to Trump who has to decide whether to approve it, but my understanding is that the entire House can vote to release despite what Trump decides.

It's pretty bad when Trey Gowdy deserts the sinking ship and the only ones left on board with Trump are Nunes and Flock.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
No, actually I pointed you to the statute and asked you to explain to me why it doesn't mean what it plainly says. You can't, of course, because (like all criminal statutes) it means what it says.

As for your opinion of my legal skills, my partners disagree. So do my clients. And opposing counsel. And the judges I appear before. But they have actual evidence of my legal skills.

Find me an attorney who thinks the statute I cited imposes criminal liability for a negligent act, and you really will have found a bad attorney. --Bob


Wasn't hard to find, bob. Look at section f. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me. Is it valid? I don't know. It seems like it would apply to negligently supplying classified information about drones. They are part of national defense, I would assume.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
All of which apply to physical instrumentalities and none of which apply to the information in an e-mail. If through gross negligence you move a code book somewhere it's not supposed to be, you've got a problem.

And all of this is completely beside the point. Secretary Clinton is a private citizen. Donny is a danger to the Republic. Nunes has now admitted that he lied in his report, thereby abusing his position as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. They're the ones in power now. They're the ones who need to be held accountable. --Bob

bobby, bobby. bobby. You are getting to be pretty funny.

Quote:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession ..., appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense


Nope.

Secretary Clinton is NOW a public citizen. She was a public servant when she was ENTRUSTED with classified INFORMATION relating to the NATIONAL DEFENSE which she willfully stored on unsecured servers.

bobby, you can play semantics games all day and night. That's what you do as a lawyer, I guess. But I grow weary of it. The point is neither of us KNOW why Hillary is not in jail right now. I made a case that she violated section f of 18 US Code 793, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to 10 years. Was it because 'No Prosecutor would take the case', as Comey wrote (Apparently before he even had her interviewed), or because different rules apply to her than to the rest of us. None of us probably ever will.

As per your partners disagreeing with me as per your skills. First of all, I don't doubt you have skills. I doubt you have ethics. And, as I remember, you stated your firm was 100% behind you in declaring your mission against the President, so I question their ethics, too. You apparently place politics before truth.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
jarnon wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Huma Abedin passed classified information to her husband, a sex offender, who at the time was very susceptible to black mail? Why isn't she in jail?
The emails were in backups of Abedin's cell phone on Weiner's computer. There's no evidence that Weiner saw them, or even could have (he'd have to know Abedin's password or hack the backup). The blackmail threat is more problematic; he could have secretly turned over the laptop to an adversary. If he had, he (possibly both of them) would be in jail. But as far as we know, Weiner's a scumbag but not a traitor.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Hillary Clinton was guilty of extreme carelessness (otherwise known as gross negligence) in handling classified material. It is pretty much a given that anyone else would have been charged with a crime.
I worked with highly classified data every day for thirty years. People were reprimanded, or even fired, for mishandling classified material (much worse than what Clinton did), but nobody's ever charged with a crime for carelessness.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why did Hillary tell her daughter and a few other people that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but everyone else that it was because of some video no one ever saw? I never got a plausible explanation for that one, only that it didn't make any difference. Did you get a plausible explanation for that? If you did, please clue me in.
There were conflicting intelligence reports on whether the attack was triggered by the video or by conflicts between Libyan militias. But everyone agreed that it was terrorism.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
*Why does James Comey go unpunished for leaking confidential information to the press in order to jump start a special prosecution?
As FBI director, Comey had lots of discretion about what to reveal, just as Clinton did and Trump does now. He was fired, (opinion alert) a worse punishment than he deserved.

I tried to stick to the facts and leave bias out of it. You know from all my posts that I try to be fair. But when you make accusations, remember that you're the one who needs facts to make them stick. The accused, even if it's Clinton or Trump, doesn't have to prove they're false.


Thanks for trying, in good faith, to answer the questions I have, without calling me names or including some snide remark.
I would take a few exceptions to your analysis. I believe that Huma testified she would send some of the material to the other computer so she could more easily print them. Would someone in a 'lower' position get off with that excuse? I don't know. I would think if just one individual got charged and convicted for doing something similar, there would be a case that she got favored treatment.
I have made a case that seems to hold water to me (not being a lawyer) that Clinton violated section F of 18 US Code 793. I could be all wet on that, but I don't know the circumstances of your co-workers. Did they violate the statute?
No, everyone did not agree it was terrorism. Susan Rice made the case on the talk shows that it was a reaction to an anti-muslim video, not terrorism.
I watched Comey's testimony and was very surprised he admitted that he leaked information to the press. I believe you're not supposed to do that. If it's information the public should know, you should release it to the public, not to specified people in the press in order to force an outcome you wish to achieve.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
The House panel votes to release the Democratic rebuttal to Nunes' memo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 307458002/

It now goes to Trump who has to decide whether to approve it, but my understanding is that the entire House can vote to release despite what Trump decides.

It's pretty bad when Trey Gowdy deserts the sinking ship and the only ones left on board with Trump are Nunes and Flock.


It says the vote was unanimous. Doesn't that mean that Nunes also voted to release it? That seems to indicate the republicans want all the information to come out, as opposed to the democrats who want only information favorable to their position to be given to the public. Sounds like the MSM.

Where did you get the idea that I was opposed to the democrat memo being released, or any information for that matter? Oh, I forgot. You have to always go with your bigotry. I am a caricature to you, embodying all the stereotypes you consider abhorrent in republicans, even though I've told you numerous times that I'm not a republican.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
I am spending way too much time on this, but I am tired of bob's demanding I give him specific answers in legal terms acceptable to him alone, when he is so obviously biased that he will accept nothing. And I'm tired of SSS ignoring everything I say and continuing to knee-jerkingly cast me into his republican bogeyman.
This will all play out how it will without consideration to how ANY of us think. And however it plays out, I don't think any of us will be satisfied that justice has been done. That's how it goes in Washington DC.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
As per your partners disagreeing with me as per your skills. First of all, I don't doubt you have skills. I doubt you have ethics.
Flock, it is a serious thing to accuse a practicing lawyer of lacking ethics. I take my reputation very seriously.

I urge you to reconsider whether you want to go there. Or you might just find out through personal experience whether I'm as good a lawyer as I think I am. --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 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
As per your partners disagreeing with me as per your skills. First of all, I don't doubt you have skills. I doubt you have ethics.
Flock, it is a serious thing to accuse a practicing lawyer of lacking ethics. I take my reputation very seriously.

I urge you to reconsider whether you want to go there. Or you might just find out through personal experience whether I'm as good a lawyer as I think I am. --Bob


A threat? Wow. Well sir, in that case let me put it on the record that I consider you the most ethical lawyer this country has ever produced.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:06 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17368
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
As per your partners disagreeing with me as per your skills. First of all, I don't doubt you have skills. I doubt you have ethics.
Flock, it is a serious thing to accuse a practicing lawyer of lacking ethics. I take my reputation very seriously.

I urge you to reconsider whether you want to go there. Or you might just find out through personal experience whether I'm as good a lawyer as I think I am. --Bob


A threat? Wow. Well sir, in that case let me put it on the record that I consider you the most ethical lawyer this country has ever produced. I was wrong to have ever questioned your ethicalnessisity. I beg your forgiveness.
There's a great deal of abuse that I'm willing to take. But if you challenge my ethics or honesty in a public forum, you damned well better be able to back it up. --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 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
OK, I am done here. Sorry I offended you, bob.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: silvercamaro, silverscreenselect, T_Bone0806 and 9 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.