NATION

PASSWORD

2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Which Candidate do you like most after the debates?(Ranked in order of polling after said debates)

Joe Biden
40
14%
Bernie Sanders
92
32%
Elizabeth Warren
27
9%
Kamala Harris
10
3%
Pete Buttigieg
15
5%
Cory Booker
2
1%
Beto O'Rourke
3
1%
Andrew Yang
38
13%
Other
49
17%
Undecided
11
4%
 
Total votes : 287

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 9:52 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
No they concluded that she didn't mean to break the law. Which for anybody with the last name that's not Trump or Clinton, that's total whoreshit.

That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.


From Comey.

1. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
2. Clinton’s emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.
3. “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”
4. “The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
5. Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”
6. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
7. “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 9:52 am

Telconi wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.


The FBI report specifically outlined the number of known times she transmitted classified information via personal e-mail.

And then concluded that it wasn't illegal (IIRC the laws that made it illegal weren't in effect when she did it, but I might be wrong on that count).
Was it careless? Definitely. Was it wrong? Yeah, probably. But neither of those things are synonyms for "illegal".
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 9:54 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:

I haven't commented on the Barr issue, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Cheers.

Eh, going by what we've seen in this thread, it's a reasonable guess to make. It really shouldn't be, but it is.


Me: *rails against Trump, doesn't vote for Trump. Leaves republican party over trump.*
Nobody: Bats an eye.
Me: *Disagrees with democrats*
Everyone: "YOU SUPPORT TRUMP"

cool story.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 9:59 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.


From Comey.

1. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
2. Clinton’s emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.
3. “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”
4. “The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
5. Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”
6. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
7. “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."

Nowhere in any of this does someone say that she definitely broke the law. #1 implies it, but taking it literally, all it does is rule out the possibility of intent. #3 doesn't say anything about legality. #4 seems to say very little other than "this wasn't unique to her". #5-#7 are, as you said, largely irrelevant, but #6 is worth noting. That leaves #2, which does not by itself prove anything. I mean, you'd think they would be a bit more open about it if they thought she was guilty of treason.
I'm not saying that you're wrong - I don't particularly like Clinton and I have no problem with her getting arrested for crimes, provided that she committed them - but I don't think that this qualifies as good evidence.
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:00 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Telconi wrote:
The FBI report specifically outlined the number of known times she transmitted classified information via personal e-mail.

And then concluded that it wasn't illegal (IIRC the laws that made it illegal weren't in effect when she did it, but I might be wrong on that count).
Was it careless? Definitely. Was it wrong? Yeah, probably. But neither of those things are synonyms for "illegal".


They claimed at the time they didn't have the "C" stamp for classified, however based on need to know rules that's actually not a defense. She, being the secretary of state, is supposed to know what's classifiable and what's not. If I know the new nuclear codes and sell them to China, I don't get away with it just because the paperwork hadn't cleared yet. Granted she didn't do anything as egregious as that, but she represented a huge liability, and took demonstrable steps to obstruct the FBI investigation by destroying evidence.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 10:00 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Eh, going by what we've seen in this thread, it's a reasonable guess to make. It really shouldn't be, but it is.


Me: *rails against Trump, doesn't vote for Trump. Leaves republican party over trump.*
Nobody: Bats an eye.
Me: *Disagrees with democrats*
Everyone: "YOU SUPPORT TRUMP"

cool story.

Did you miss the part where I said "in this thread"?
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:01 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
From Comey.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."

Nowhere in any of this does someone say that she definitely broke the law. #1 implies it, but taking it literally, all it does is rule out the possibility of intent. #3 doesn't say anything about legality. #4 seems to say very little other than "this wasn't unique to her". #5-#7 are, as you said, largely irrelevant, but #6 is worth noting. That leaves #2, which does not by itself prove anything. I mean, you'd think they would be a bit more open about it if they thought she was guilty of treason.
I'm not saying that you're wrong - I don't particularly like Clinton and I have no problem with her getting arrested for crimes, provided that she committed them - but I don't think that this qualifies as good evidence.


Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 10:03 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:And then concluded that it wasn't illegal (IIRC the laws that made it illegal weren't in effect when she did it, but I might be wrong on that count).
Was it careless? Definitely. Was it wrong? Yeah, probably. But neither of those things are synonyms for "illegal".


They claimed at the time they didn't have the "C" stamp for classified, however based on need to know rules that's actually not a defense. She, being the secretary of state, is supposed to know what's classifiable and what's not. If I know the new nuclear codes and sell them to China, I don't get away with it just because the paperwork hadn't cleared yet. Granted she didn't do anything as egregious as that, but she represented a huge liability, and took demonstrable steps to obstruct the FBI investigation by destroying evidence.

Comey stated pretty openly that he didn't think she was trying to destroy evidence when she deleted her emails.
James Comey wrote:Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed.
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 10:03 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Nowhere in any of this does someone say that she definitely broke the law. #1 implies it, but taking it literally, all it does is rule out the possibility of intent. #3 doesn't say anything about legality. #4 seems to say very little other than "this wasn't unique to her". #5-#7 are, as you said, largely irrelevant, but #6 is worth noting. That leaves #2, which does not by itself prove anything. I mean, you'd think they would be a bit more open about it if they thought she was guilty of treason.
I'm not saying that you're wrong - I don't particularly like Clinton and I have no problem with her getting arrested for crimes, provided that she committed them - but I don't think that this qualifies as good evidence.


Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:04 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Me: *rails against Trump, doesn't vote for Trump. Leaves republican party over trump.*
Nobody: Bats an eye.
Me: *Disagrees with democrats*
Everyone: "YOU SUPPORT TRUMP"

cool story.

Did you miss the part where I said "in this thread"?


Even still, all you have to go on is me disagreeing with you guys.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Telconi
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28105
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon May 20, 2019 10:05 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.


That was what the FBI and the AG said though. It was basically "yes she commited a criminal act, but on accident"
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 10:10 am

Telconi wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.


That was what the FBI and the AG said though. It was basically "yes she commited a criminal act, but on accident"

I read what Tarsonis posted and I've been looking on the Internet for a time when they stated that and I can't find one. They definitely implied it, but I don't think that a simple implication is enough.
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:11 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.


But it was. #2 sets up #3, which is the real illegality here. She had the classified information on her unofficial email address which violates policy requiring classified information to be restricted to official channels, and she shared that information using the same email addresses. Sharing classified information via unsecured means is illegal. #4 doesn't say "well it wasn't unique to her" what is says is that her state department differed from every other with the lax levels of security they had in place compared to the other departments. #6 is shorthand "no prosecutor would want this case because the difficulty of garnering a conviction would be way to high." That's no more an exoneration than Mueller's "not enough evidence to substantiate claims of collusion but neither does it exonerate him'"

Which brings us back to #1, well she was extremely careless but she didn't mean to break the law, therefore she's not liable. Which again, if this were anyone else, that shit wouldn't fly at all.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Gormwood
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5494
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gormwood » Mon May 20, 2019 10:15 am

Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

Image
Bloodthirsty savages who call for violence against the Right while simultaneously being unarmed defenseless sissies who will get slaughtered by the gun-toting Right in a civil war.
Breath So Bad, It Actually Drives People Mad

User avatar
Ferringinar
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: May 26, 2005
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ferringinar » Mon May 20, 2019 10:20 am

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.


I haven't seen such a person get elected, since Carter. Nobody wants a wishy-washy president, any more.

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3218
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Mon May 20, 2019 10:22 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.


But it was. #2 sets up #3, which is the real illegality here. She had the classified information on her unofficial email address which violates policy requiring classified information to be restricted to official channels, and she shared that information using the same email addresses. Sharing classified information via unsecured means is illegal. #4 doesn't say "well it wasn't unique to her" what is says is that her state department differed from every other with the lax levels of security they had in place compared to the other departments. #6 is shorthand "no prosecutor would want this case because the difficulty of garnering a conviction would be way to high." That's no more an exoneration than Mueller's "not enough evidence to substantiate claims of collusion but neither does it exonerate him'"

Which brings us back to #1, well she was extremely careless but she didn't mean to break the law, therefore she's not liable. Which again, if this were anyone else, that shit wouldn't fly at all.

I'm doing my best to read this as though it means nothing more and nothing less than what it says. And what it says is "careless", not "illegal". It's definitely not an exoneration, but just going by what I'm seeing here, I see no proof of guilt, and you're saying that proof is there.
But whatever, I hate defending people I don't want to defend, so I'd really like to stop now. If someone who actually likes Clinton wants to do it, then they're welcome to, but I just... don't. That OK with everyone?
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:26 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
But it was. #2 sets up #3, which is the real illegality here. She had the classified information on her unofficial email address which violates policy requiring classified information to be restricted to official channels, and she shared that information using the same email addresses. Sharing classified information via unsecured means is illegal. #4 doesn't say "well it wasn't unique to her" what is says is that her state department differed from every other with the lax levels of security they had in place compared to the other departments. #6 is shorthand "no prosecutor would want this case because the difficulty of garnering a conviction would be way to high." That's no more an exoneration than Mueller's "not enough evidence to substantiate claims of collusion but neither does it exonerate him'"

Which brings us back to #1, well she was extremely careless but she didn't mean to break the law, therefore she's not liable. Which again, if this were anyone else, that shit wouldn't fly at all.

I'm doing my best to read this as though it means nothing more and nothing less than what it says. And what it says is "careless", not "illegal". It's definitely not an exoneration, but just going by what I'm seeing here, I see no proof of guilt, and you're saying that proof is there.
But whatever, I hate defending people I don't want to defend, so I'd really like to stop now. If someone who actually likes Clinton wants to do it, then they're welcome to, but I just... don't. That OK with everyone?


I'm saying she committed an illegal act within the framework of the law. Comey drew an imaginary line and said it was okay, because she didn't "Mean to" and her commission of an illegal act was due to carelessness not intent.

Which, for virtually every other fucking law on the books, negligence/carelessness is not an excuse. It might result in a lesser charge, but it is still very much prosecutable. Yeah she wasn't committing espionage, but she was recklessly putting classified information at risk, lesser charge but still a bad one. Comey was right that no reasonable prosecutor would touch this case, because with how politically charged it was you'd never get an unbiased jury, let alone trying to get them to convict. This is why the Republicans call foul because it basically gives her special exemption of the rules.

I'll let you have the last word if you want it before moving on.
Last edited by Tarsonis on Mon May 20, 2019 10:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61104
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 20, 2019 10:28 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I'm doing my best to read this as though it means nothing more and nothing less than what it says. And what it says is "careless", not "illegal". It's definitely not an exoneration, but just going by what I'm seeing here, I see no proof of guilt, and you're saying that proof is there.
But whatever, I hate defending people I don't want to defend, so I'd really like to stop now. If someone who actually likes Clinton wants to do it, then they're welcome to, but I just... don't. That OK with everyone?


I'm saying she committed an illegal act within the framework of the law. Comey drew an imaginary line and said it was okay, because she didn't "Mean to" and her commission of an illegal act was due to carelessness not intent.

Which, for virtually every other fucking law on the books, negligence/carelessness is not an excuse. It might result in a lesser charge, but it is still very much prosecutable. Comey was right that no reasonable prosecutor would touch this case, because with how politically charged it was you'd never get an unbiased jury, let alone trying to get them to convict. This is why the Republicans call foul because it basically gives her special exemption of the rules.

I know people like to conflate "careless" with "criminally negligent", but they are really two different concepts. One can be careless without being criminally negligent, although it's hard to be criminally negligent without being careless.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Tarsonis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9383
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Mon May 20, 2019 10:30 am

Galloism wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
I'm saying she committed an illegal act within the framework of the law. Comey drew an imaginary line and said it was okay, because she didn't "Mean to" and her commission of an illegal act was due to carelessness not intent.

Which, for virtually every other fucking law on the books, negligence/carelessness is not an excuse. It might result in a lesser charge, but it is still very much prosecutable. Comey was right that no reasonable prosecutor would touch this case, because with how politically charged it was you'd never get an unbiased jury, let alone trying to get them to convict. This is why the Republicans call foul because it basically gives her special exemption of the rules.

I know people like to conflate "careless" with "criminally negligent", but they are really two different concepts. One can be careless without being criminally negligent, although it's hard to be criminally negligent without being careless.


I don't think you can draw a distinction in this case with that high level of an office, we're talking about violating known protocols specifically put in place to protect classified information which she flouted. That's criminal negligence, at least in my book.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61104
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 20, 2019 11:22 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Galloism wrote:I know people like to conflate "careless" with "criminally negligent", but they are really two different concepts. One can be careless without being criminally negligent, although it's hard to be criminally negligent without being careless.


I don't think you can draw a distinction in this case with that high level of an office, we're talking about violating known protocols specifically put in place to protect classified information which she flouted. That's criminal negligence, at least in my book.

Maybe, but in point of fact, his reference of her being "careless" shouldn't be seen as the same as "criminal negligence".
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Mon May 20, 2019 12:36 pm

Ferringinar wrote:
Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.


I haven't seen such a person get elected, since Carter. Nobody wants a wishy-washy president, any more.


What a load of crap.

You prefer a wishy-washy person that can act tough instead?

The B-actor known as President Reagan, let's attack Grenada, right! Then there's Bush 41, *looks at watch* leaves Saddam in power so some day his idiot son has a cheap excuse. Bill Clinton, heh, nothing but a stained jazz player, speaking of wishing for the wash. Bush 43, he got no stra-teegery, no nothing, bail out the banks!
O, then the guy that finally killed Bin Laden. Oh wait that guy wasn't so wimpy considering. Or a Reality TV (fake) star bullshit artist.

Trump is pretty damn wishy-washy. Licking Putin's boots in Helsinki. The whole snuggle-fest with Kim Jong Un. He's pathetic.
Last edited by Sidesh0w B0b on Mon May 20, 2019 1:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Valrifell
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21993
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Valrifell » Mon May 20, 2019 12:38 pm

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.


Trump doesn't even do that, so I'm unsure why we'd hold him to a lesser standard.
I like to imagine Sisyphus happy
I did some things

User avatar
West Leas Oros 2
Minister
 
Posts: 2132
Founded: Jul 15, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby West Leas Oros 2 » Mon May 20, 2019 1:40 pm

Gormwood wrote:Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

(Image)

I mean, she is legitimately an incredibly terrible person.
West Leas Oros 2, Election Boogaloo (Please ignore the 2 in our name in all IC interactions)
WLO Public News: West Leas Oros now a sponsor of Leninade!
I killed the entire population of Vuvuzela by raising the minimum wage
Simultaneously an evil commie who wants to take your toothbrush, and an evil brocialist reactionary and revisionist.
An accurate description of NSG: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQFU1y928dw

MP Arthur Woole in the NS Parliament

User avatar
Telconi
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28105
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon May 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Valrifell wrote:
Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.


Trump doesn't even do that, so I'm unsure why we'd hold him to a lesser standard.


Well being a better option than Trump would involve being better ... than Trump...
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Gormwood
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5494
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gormwood » Mon May 20, 2019 1:43 pm

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Gormwood wrote:Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

(Image)

I mean, she is legitimately an incredibly terrible person.

Suure. And legitimately out of U.S. politics since 2016 but gotta keep bringing her up like Emmanuel Goldstein.
Bloodthirsty savages who call for violence against the Right while simultaneously being unarmed defenseless sissies who will get slaughtered by the gun-toting Right in a civil war.
Breath So Bad, It Actually Drives People Mad

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asherahan, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Chan Island, Dooom35796821595, Forsher, Google [Bot], Hansdeltania, Karamiko, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads