You write so beautifully on the football board, too...
There is less partisan stupidity there.
The great thing about athletics is bullshit fails every time.
Scoreboard tells the story - not status.
Hickory plays best - Hickory wins.
I owe this Board an apology
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
There is less partisan stupidity there.
The great thing about athletics is bullshit fails every time.
Scoreboard tells the story - not status.
Hickory plays best - Hickory wins.
Freshman Writing Workshop, Kentucky Wesleyan Collage.You write so beautifully on the football board, too...
So are you saying that if others committed the same illegal acts, but were not screamed about, that Hillary is innocent, because they both had broken the law?
Now that is very good critical thinking. Freshman Writing Workshop Kentucky Wesleyan.
I think he (and others) are just reminding us that criminal or not, this is a politically-driven witch-hunt dressed up as a desire to see justice done.
So was Watergate a politically-driven witch-hunt or a desire to see justice done?
How about Iran-Contra?
Teapot Dome?
I assume only Repubkicans engage in witch-hunts, but I'll give you the chance ...
It's not beyond anyone's capability, though. You don't have to be among the privileged elite by any means. Setting up an email server in one's home is a relatively simple and inexpensive process.
Of course he was, but the point, by doing so is just another endless cycle of gorilla dust. Ohhh look a squirrel.
At some point and time, someone needs to stop this merry go round. And I am sorry but with the number of "coincidences" (body count, investigations...) the Clintons are the using Washington on us like the 9/11 hijackers used airplanes.
I will await the reticule and deletion.
I dunno. I was born in 1978, man. But I know this: Hillary haters wanted her convicted. They didn't and don't care about the truth. If the FBI - professionals that they are - decide there isn't cause to recommend charges, then we will just get more of these threads. They aren't - and can't be - satisfied with any outcome that doesn't involve Hillary in prison, and the facts are irrelevant.
If coincidences convince you there is something really shady about a politician, that is a good reason to withhold your vote from them. But it is a terrible reason to want someone in prison.
Bull.
There was reason to suspect Hillary violated law and to have it investigated.
The mere fact that there was classified data on her server was sufficient to have an investigation.
Period.
And if she violated the law she should be convicted - without regard to the haters.
Period.
The obvious answer you refuse to accept, look at the sentencing for Blacks and Whites for drug crime. iI know that there can be extenuating circumstances on individual crimes, but over tens of thousands of crimes over decades, that should even out. If a batter hits 230 with 500 plate appearances over 10 years, he ain't a good hitter. I don't care what excuse he has.
Beyond that, the average public defense has 7 minutes to meet his client. That isn't a lot of time to prepare a quality defense. John Oliver tackled that one really well.
I note a trend with two recent high profile cases. The Stanford kid who was accused of rape and received no real jail time and the IU student who was accused of 2 rapes and plea bargained down to one day were both white and had council. Do you really believe a public defender turns both of those cases? I doubt your average indigent person gets anything close.
Further we can delve into for-profit prisons and how people are being jailed over inability to pay fines. There is a critical problem with private probation companies screwing people over. And these are not wealthy people being impacted.
And there was an investigation. But if it doesn't result in charges, that won't be good enough, as the existence of this thread proves. And if there are charges, but she is acquitted, we will probably have new threads about how the jury and/or judge were compromised.
We have debated this a lot in the past but I would like to ask you this.......
Classified material did pass thru her private server. Do you deny that? Please don't respond with a simple has to be proven phrase.
If you deny this then what do you feel about the IG report, the DOD reports, and for that matter her own State Dept spokesman who stated that there were emails on the server that can't be released because of the high classification? Either these government agencies and spokesman are reporting factual evidence or they have fabricated it. One or the other.
If by chance you acknowledge the reports are real and factual then you must be saying it is not the same as ending up where it wasn't allowed? It sounds like you are saying if in fact classified material passed thru her server that it is ok as long as it wasn't hacked or someone unauthorized to do so got possession of them and exposing the emails to this insecure threat is simply ok as nothing happened we know of.
You also point out that it has to be done with someone's knowledge. You surely acknowledge that Hillary was aware of her private server don't you? She admitted so on national TV several times she had a private server and used it extensively for State Dept affairs. Isn't this in itself pretty damning evidence? Keeping in mind even using a private server is in direct violation of numerous statutes, rules and even executive orders regarding the transmission, handling and storage of classified materials. The State Dept stated they weren't asked and would never have approved!
If you can acknowledge the IG reports etc as genuine then it appears from your statements in bold print that Fed statutes and rules etc applying to the handling of classified materials and their storage along with correspondence with foreign nations does not apply in this case involving Hillary.
Sir you seem to always differ to Hillarys constitutional rights and the rule of law which is fine but you avoid debate about whether all the information and reports out there are factual or fabricated and the very simple fact that using a private server in the first place is in direct violation of numerous statutes, orders etc. You differ to her rights and........prove she had knowledge and the emails involved ended up in the wrong place. Of course it all has to be proven!
But she has to be indicted first and we all know it won't happen. She is and elite and the rules and law that applies to me and you will not for her.
I most certainly appreciate your high standards for the rule of law but it almost seems you ignore any and all information reported by various government agencies and any debate on it and defer to prove it. You closed with, "The simple fact that those emails exist is not enough to prove a crime, no matter how many times you repeat it."
That is true in fact and it does have to be proven. The emails exist. A private server is in direct violation of several legal standards. Hillary acknowledge the private server. Several were classified. Classified material did in fact end up where it wasn't supposed to be. Hillary stated she used a private server and it was a mistake. She told the nation this on TV. There is your knowledge.
I know....prove it.
No, and I never have. I don't know if any information on her server was classified when it was there, but based on what's been reported to the public, that at least seems very probable. In fact, I think at least the State IG's report made it very clear that in his opinion, at least some of those emails were classified at the time they were on her server.
Irrelevant in light of my previous answer.
I don't know why it would sound like that, since I'm not saying that or anything like that. I'm just repeatedly (and apparently uselessly) pointing out that the existence of classified information where it doesn't belong is not in and of itself a crime, but is only one element of a crime (or, more accurately, many possible crimes).
Please note, also, as you seamlessly move into the knowledge aspect, that every time you jump in and question me in these discussions, I am not arguing with someone about what knowledge can be proven. I am arguing with someone (usually Ladoga) about the fact that the statute even requires it. Ladoga continues to try to redefine crimes under the Espionage Act as strict liability offenses, by claiming that the mere existence of the information on her server is in and of itself a felony, and I continue to remind him that he is wrong to do so.
No. Knowledge of the server is not the knowledge necessary to create a crime. If you shoot someone, and the prosecutor wants to charge you with some level of homicide that requires knowledge, it's not enough for him to prove that you knew you pulled the trigger. He has to prove something beyond that, which would vary based on the specific law and jurisdiction, but would likely be something along the lines of knowledge that there was someone within the range of your weapon who was in danger of being struck with the round if you fired it.
Not being an expert on espionage law, this isn't worth a whole lot, but it's highly likely that knowledge a prosecutor would need to prove with Hillary would be something along the lines of actual knowledge that any particular piece of information was classified, or, actual knowledge of some fact that should have required her to further inquire about the specific status of any particular information (for example, if she had actual knowledge that a staff member had removed classification markings from information and sent it over disallowed channels, she should have put effort into further examining any information she had stored on her server that originated with that particular staff member).
Someone who actually knows espionage law in detail might be able to clarify that, but I'd bet money it will be something close to that.
Not at the time, it wasn't.
This is questionable, and might be true, but doesn't necessarily mean it was criminal.
This is certainly true, and it's good evidence that Hillary was irresponsible. But it is not evidence of a crime.
You injure me, sir, your polite language notwithstanding.
No, I don't. I just point out that they don't prove crimes occurred.
Again, not at the time, it wasn't.
Again, see my previous explanation of knowledge. You are being repetitive here, my friend.
That might be true. Rich and powerful people often don't face the same legal consequences as us regular folk. Aloha and Bing have both suggested they'd serve serious time for doing what Hillary did. They might be right. But, Petraeus didn't serve any time at all, and he should have. Guys at the top have advantages. And that sucks, and I wish we'd do something about it. It's nice to see your side of the aisle finally recognizing this problem. I just hope you don't forget it exists when the Hillary saga is over (spoiler alert: you will).
I disagree, for all the reasons I've stated above.
Because it's true.
Again, not the kind of knowledge the law demands.
Go for it, but I don't see how you can. Neither you nor any other poster on this forum who is convinced that Hillary is guilty (or innocent!) has access to the necessary information to prove that claim. What's disgusting is that many of your political allies have made that determination, anyway, and if/when the FBI doesn't recommend charges, the response is what we've seen from OP here: that it must be some kind of miscarriage of justice. You refuse to even consider the possibility that she maybe didn't actually break the law. That's the epitome of biased political bullshit. You know she's guilty, even without proof, and you refuse to consider the alternative. If someone shows me proof tomorrow that she committed a crime, I'll believe she committed a crime. If someone shows you proof tomorrow that she did not commit a crime, you'll believe it was fabricated. That dichotomy alone makes it insane that you would sit here and lecture me about my take on this matter, but it's even more offensive because we live in a nation where the burden of proving a crime is on the government, rather than the burden of proving innocence being on the accused. That fact is one of the greatest things about our culture. And you're turning it around and using it as an insult. You're basically criticizing me for holding more strongly to American values. There should be at least some minimum level of shame that you feel about that.
Last edited:
No I am not sir. I believe in due process etc and just as strongly as do you. It just continues to amaze me that as and example you can look at Trump and the Trump U deal and be firmly convinced that he is guilty, a shyster, and a crook and almost without question and without a trial while there is nothing out there but accusations. But with Hillary you will point to pride in the fact that you hold dear our American values and legal system.
Your comment that the private server wasn't against the rules at the time may or may not be correct. I will confess without more research I can't argue that point. However, there were Fed statutes, regs, and orders in place on managing and security of government emails, correspondence with foreign nations and the handling of classified materials etc. All of these rules etc were in force at the time regardless of it being a law or not regarding a private server.
Hillarys knowledge of the private server and using it involving classified materials is not the kind of knowledge the law requires. That blows my mind sir.
You told me you were the judge and jury with Trump and would make your decision in the voting booth. You said you had seen enough evidence to convince you of that. My decision that as my own judge and jury regarding Hillary without a trial and based on my personal feelings in your view makes me very wrong and I am going against our American values etc for feeling this way. I am a sleaze for thinking Hillary guilty despite a mountain of evidence but you are to be praised for giving Hillary the benefit of doubt and you are upholding our great American values while with Trump you are not and of course the issues are unrelated. As you told me...."That's the epitome of biased political bullshit."
I'll give you this much.....you are right in stating I will feel there is a miscarriage of justice if Hillary is not indicted. Call me wrong, depraved, shameful or whatever. And for what its worth I agree with most of your opinions on Trump. Had he been involved in this email fiasco I would feel the same and even before the hearings were done and his day in court. My feelings aren't biased political BS and they aren't partisan. Both present the American people with piss poor choices. Sadly I am convinced that Trump is the lessor of two evils and the nation will suffer less with him as POTUS.
I'm done with this issue for good but I will suggest one other thing. IF Hillary were to be indicted or the FBI recommend it many on the left will still think it a witch hunt and a right wing conspiracy. If found guilty.....my God! A demonstration that our legal system has gone to hell. Mark my words.
The difference between me and the people I am arguing with is that my extralegal judgments about Trump have convinced me that he does not deserve my vote, while their extralegal judgments about Hillary have convinced them that she should be in prison. Based on your comments here, you agree with them. That's, I'm sorry, very sad to see. You have a right to vote for whomever you like, and you can use whatever criteria you like. That's a right you hold that can't be taken from you. If you think Hillary is too shady to vote for, more power to you. I won't argue against that, and I never have. The problem is when you go beyond what's within your own individual power, and start demanding that she be indicted and imprisoned. That's where you and your side go over the line, and it's where your treatment of Hillary departs significantly from my treatment of Trump. I don't trust Trump. Because of that, he won't get my vote. That's as far as it goes. You don't trust Hillary, but not getting your vote isn't good enough for you. You won't be satisfied unless she's in an orange jumper. That's the difference, and that's what's sad about your arguments on this topic.
Don't put the prison word in my mouth. Now if she were to ever leave a crack that wasn't kil, I mean filled and found herself there, I would sleep just fine.
And yes I think there are many that have some/ a lot of skeletons but the Clintons... Good lord we know a huge number, just think of the ones we don't know. Does that make her guilty in your court room, No. But it doesn't pass a stink test from 100 miles away either.
You've "corrected" (as if you were authority enough to correct anything) but been wrong every time in your blind defense of the indefenseable. Clinton committed all those crimes listed and more. Now will the cover up continue and you continue to participate in covering up her crimes? Perhaps. The place classified information ended up where it wasn't allowed was her personal server. You know that, don't you? Experts whose pencils you are not worthy to carry - on this board - have explained it time and again. We have real expertise here that you do not share or understand. You're defending federal felonies. Now, you're just plain wrong, counselor. Of course, shown the law and public evidence, in blind defense or the horribles of Clinton, you stand tall for the wrong.
Goat, you do yourself no favors posting in this manner
You can argue all you want in the defense of Clinton, and you have done so. But stop lecturing all of us about what the "people you are arguing with" say about this issue. Your post above is just about 100% wrong. So wrong that I wrote a response and then deleted it in favor of this brief one. Maybe this is just another pre-dawn diatribe, I dunno.
No, I don't accept your "obvious answer".
Read this Heather MacDonald piece.
I'll add a few "unsourced" remarks.
- John Oliver!? Are you kidding me? He's a comedian with comedic writers. He intended to rile up people with his polemic. Apparently it worked.
- The Stanford kid is an outlier and was a mistake. He doesn't represent any sort of trend
- Prosecutors have about as much time with a file for high volume cases as do public defenders. I won't deny the system is stressed at some levels. But when it comes to high impact and rarer cases, the lawyers are prepared. "Ineffective assistance of counsel" claims to vacate convictions or sentencing is alive and well and is also part of the system.
- Most sentencing is part of the plea deal.
- Sentencing guidelines (which I am mostly opposed to) limit the discretion of judges and instead impose one size fits all race neutral metrics into the sentencing hearing
- Probation is the alternative to jail. A violation of terms of probation will land the offender in jail, almost immediately. This is true whether or not the probation officer is public or private
- Private probation is an effort to help the offender. It takes money, an offenders pay for that. Just like offenders also pay for such things as victim compensation funds, and work release and other alternative sentencing methods. When the public probationary system is at capacity, a private system is there to pick up the overflow. With everything from medicaid, to K-12 education, to roads, to mental health, and more on the government's plate, criminal justice and prisons need to face economic reality.
- Private prisons must comply with 8th amendment standards.
- I don't disagree that money buys better justice. But gold standard justice is not what we can provide as a society. We do a damn good job with basic due process.
- As I noted, the system isn't perfect. But then the system immensely protective of the rights of the accused. For serious crimes, the offender is entitled to an attorney at the point of a custodial investigation, even before an arrest and arraignment.
- Finally, racism exists. But that isn't a CJ issue. It's a social issue.
Last edited:
There's a reason for that, Goat. If she escapes charges that most people would've faced for what she did, the appearance (if not the reality) will be that she got preferential treatment not because she's rich (which is the usual charge about our "broken justice system"), but because of how she's politically situated in relation to who made the determination to let her skate.
That is not the sort of situation that anybody talks about when they complain about our justice system, writ large. The general complaint there is that people with money get off easier than people without money.
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying the complaint about her getting preferential treatment is political? Well, sure. And if it were Donald Trump facing indictment and getting a better deal than he ought to (or a better deal than others would get) then all the roles would be reversed. And the battle lines would still be drawn for political reasons.
But that really has nothing to do with whether or not she committed any crimes that warrant prosecution.
I just finished watching ESPN's (fantastic) OJ Simpson documentary. One of its major themes -- bluntly admitted to by one of the jurors -- was that OJ's acquittal was "payback" for the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King. In other words, these jurors apparently didn't care whether OJ had actually killed two people. In fact, I got the impression that both of the jurors they interviewed actually believed he had. As far as they were concerned, the justice system had screwed black people over so regularly that this case offered them a golden opportunity to return serve. As such, the verdict (to them) was just -- at least so far as the justice they believed could, and most needed to, be served by an acquittal of a black man accused of killing two white people.
Whether or not he did it, and whether or not he belonged in prison, was (at best) secondary to the higher purpose.
I don't disagree with you that most peoples' view on Hillary and her email -- pro or con -- is arrived at for political reasons. But don't think that all the folks at the Justice Department (particularly the ones who matter most) are immune from that.
Because this situation is not the same as the typical one.
In fact, what's going on here is precisely the reason Congress enacted the (now expired) Ethics in Government Act. This introduced the concept of a special prosecutor (independent counsel). They did this in the wake of Watergate and how it exposed the inherent flaws of an Attorney General -- appointed and serving at the leisure of a president -- overseeing politically-charged criminal matters involving people from the executive branch.
I think you'll have a hard time finding anybody who disagrees with you that our criminal justice system, writ large, is far better engaged with money than without it. But that really isn't representative of the dynamics at work in Hillary Clinton's case. If she's treated differently than others would have been, it will have had nothing to do with her financial situation (or her race, or anything else that is typically cited as underlying a justice system that is not truly as blind as it claims to be).
Loretta Lynch should've done what John Ashcroft did with the Plame affair. In that, he recused himself and (then deputy AG) James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald special counsel to take it over.
Ah, see you and Ms MacDonald miss my point. I'm not arguing the system is racist, I am arguing it is elitist. Wealth buys privilege. OJ is the perfect example, no way non-football OJ walks from that crime. Now, the system is racist in that blacks have a higher likelihood of being poor.
It isn't hard to google the phrase public defender broken and find hits for most states (blue and red). And it isn't hard to look at the issues. In Utah, a defender makes roughly $20/case. In New Orleans, there are 9 investigators and 18,000 cases. I don't know how adequate an investigator can do 2000 cases in a year. As a defender points out, surveillance footage is usually erased before the investigators can get to it.
We all know why lady justice wears a blindfold. You admit money buys better justice but that we cannot provide gold standard justice. I don't know how to reconcile those two ideas. The ideal was John Adams defending a British soldier. We aren't even in the same ballpark, heck, same zip code as that ideal. I am not naive enough to believe we will get back to that point, that the best and brightest will represent the unpopular accused criminal. But I'm not sure we are even close at this point. From "driving while black" (which though a problem, I suspect it is again mostly economic and partially racial issue) to convictions to sentencing, money talks louder than almost anything else.
I know we have debated marijuana arrests for some time, and you don't think it is a problem. Here is a story detailing the problem. In 2011, we arrest more people in the US for possession of marijuana (not dealing, possession) than we arrest for all violent crimes combined. If convicted, a person loses rights to student financial aid. That certainly impacts the poor more than the wealthy, Donald Jr (or Malia) would have/would find a way to college without aid. I haven't looked up stats, do we want to guess what income brackets are more likely to be convicted of simple possession? I may be wrong, but I'm guessing those in poverty.
I'm not sure if she should be in prison.
I am DAMN sure she should be in front of a jury.
Soo, she's a helluva courtroom litigator, huh?
I never knew she did that . . . in that case, I suspect she'll be well-prepared for the presidential debates against Trump . . .
. . . .thanks for the heads up, MTIOTF!
Well, the FBI isn't sure. Would you like to be a consultant? Help 'em out a bit?
Soo, she's a helluva courtroom litigator, huh?
I never knew she did that . . . in that case, I suspect she'll be well-prepared for the presidential debates against Trump . . .
. . . .thanks for the heads up, MTIOTF!
Well, since at least part of Goat's past defense argument has been that she could "authorize" herself to have/use this server (i.e. the Nixon defense - "if the President OK's it - it's not illegal"), I could see her being her own lawyer too, and (since he lost his license) using Bill as the paralegal!
There's a lot of truth in that statement and the sad part is a lot of people don't care what crimes their side commits but are outraged when the other side does something wrong. I remember all the outrage on here about Bush's "illegal" spying.
Soo, she's a helluva courtroom litigator, huh?
I never knew she did that . . . in that case, I suspect she'll be well-prepared for the presidential debates against Trump . . .
. . . .thanks for the heads up, MTIOTF!
I really really really really hope Gary Johnson is included in the debates.
Does this mean you're inclined to throw your vote away again? You know either Hillary or Trump is gonna . . . oh, wait . . . .
Similar threads
