I owe this Board an apology
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Just as with your Stanford example; the O.J. example provides nothing in terms of evaluating our judicial system.
The system should be evaluated by the thousands of cases that happen every week, not the once in a lifetime O.J. case. In the same way, the few cases where money makes a difference doesn't tell us much either. I don't know if there are statistics where high dollar defenses were of no use, but I would suggest to you that the merits of the cases matter more than the money spent on them.
I'm not impressed with the differences in resources between prosecution and defense either. The discovery and disclosure requirements placed on the prosecution eliminates the need for a lot of defense investigative work.
Finally, even if you are correct about money, I don't accept the notion that money suggests that the system is broken. While money might result in walking an offender who shouldn't walk, that doesn't mean that people who don't have money, and don't walk, should have walked.
Really? Having that feeling is wrong in your opinion? Do you think I feel that Uncle Sam listens to my demands? Comey raked her and her staff over the coals and put out a scathing rebuttal to all her lies etc. Wanting her held responsible beyond a scathing criticism is not sad despite your attempt to make that opinion so. The full text of Comeys remarks are online so no point in pasting them all but I found the comment pasted below interesting.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
He is basically warning people to not consider this a precedent and attempt to duplicate many of Hillarys extreme carelessness.
Comey summed it up pretty well for the first half or two thirds before he let politics come into play. He confirmed she was a liar on several counts. You heard it or read it. She was extremely careless and probably exposed classified material to sophisticated adversaries as she used her servers in areas with a high degree of exposure. Hell he went further than that and stated: 'We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.' He indicated there was evidence that Fed statutes and rules were violated. Hell 8 of the emails contained the highest classifications possible. He also pointed to the fact that she didn't cooperate and there were emails that were not turned in and that they cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
Do I think his scathing remarks correct and factual....yes. Do I agree with his recommendation of no charges or indictment....NO. It simply goes back to there being different levels of justice. The powerful and elite are immune from prosecution that the rest of us have to live with and be prosecuted for. The same goes for the meaning and descriptions of various legal terms. Extreme carelessness compromising national security is totally different than gross negligence. BS. The legal definitions are interpreted by people holding different positions and in a position to do so and get away with it.
He was firm in this statement: There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation
I'm not sure about that. You were pretty adamant that there was enough firm evidence out there to prove him a crook and a shyster. It was a little more than your simple "judgements". The only difference between us in reality is that in my opinion and that of millions of others that there was enough evidence out there to indict her and you state its SAD we feel that way, while your comments about Trump was only a judgement and therefore acceptable and appropriate.
It's over and no point in beating a dead horse. She is a Clinton and a member of the powerful and elite and the rules we have to live by are different for her and those like her. Its not sad or shameful that many feel she should be in and orange jumpsuit. What is sad and shameful is the fact that she does not have to prove her innocence in a court of law or be subject to security and administrative sanctions as Comey implied could happen to others in the future. Yes in the future others engaged in this activity might be charged or sanctioned. Just not good old Hillary. In closing once again I comment that there a numerous highly qualified and respected attorneys, previous Fed attorneys, and even previous AG's that feel this decision to not indict her is shameful and sad. But what do they know. Our fellows here at the Cooler interpret the law and do so much more correctly and intelligently than these other seasoned legal minds and scholars.
I guess I was unclear, because I don't understand what about my post you are actually responding to here. Perhaps it would have been better for you to not cherry pick just portions of my post for response out of context..
This conversation doesn't need to continue. You should visit the new thread on Comey. Just wanted to acknowledge that I read your response.
OK Goat...whatever. Having said that I did not take anything out of context. I read the new thread and you did make very reasonable points and were somewhat critical of Hillary. I will leave it at that and probably jump in on the other thread. I did enjoy Aloha's post about different rules for the military and common folk as compared to the powerful and elite. That's it in a nutshell frankly. I am still amazed at Comeys remarks implying not to take this as a precedent and people might well be sanctioned or charged in the future for these kind of activities.
This whole deal from Bill and the AG meeting and this latest news only makes people more suspicious of our government and system and the different rules and classes of justice for all.
We either vote for a liar, and incompetent, negligent, and someone who can't run on her record or we vote for a shyster and huckster, or a third party nutcase. Sigh.....
This latest news regarding Hillary may really work against her and in favor of Trump but it doesn't do anything for the people in reality.
Once again, we are miscommunicating, and this time, I am positive it is my fault. I can see now exactly where I was unclear. Please allow me to try to fix this.
I didn't mean that it was sad or awful or whatever that you wanted to see Hillary in prison. What I intended to point out was that I found it disconcerting that you were equating your desire to see Hillary in prison with my desire to not vote for Trump because I think (among other reasons) he's a dangerous fraud. We are both making extralegal judgments about a candidate without the benefit of all the facts, but I am only extending the effect of my judgment to what I do with my vote, while you wish to extend the effect of your judgment to that candidate's legal status.
It's not your desire itself that bothers me. If you think someone committed a crime and want to see her in prison, that makes perfect sense - why wouldn't you want to see a criminal in prison? It's your equation of what you are doing with what I am doing that bothers me, because of the implication that I am some sort of hypocrite because of it. In other words, I was not taking offense at your opinion; I think your opinion is wrong, but I am not offended by it. Instead, I was taking personal offense at your misrepresentation of my opinion. My approach to my distrust of Trump and your approach to your distrust of Clinton are different. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. All that is fine. It was only when you failed to recognize the difference and implied that my disagreement with you was somehow hypocritical that I became upset.
I see now that I did a terrible job trying to explain that before; I hope I was more clear this time, and that we can now move on to the next thread. Cheers.
This is not the reason you owe the board an apology, Dave. There are many other reasons, but not this.
Similar threads
