Wrath of Dagon

Why? Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all men of principle.

Unless you played and liked Mars War Logs I wouldn't immediately jump on it. Hmm. I actually did like that game. It was clearly low budget, but it was a bit of a gem, IMO. Technomancer seems like a much bigger game, certainly graphics and level design are improved. But it also seems like they speeded up combat, I barely have time to use any abilities.

If it's a likely win should not be the determining factor. The only criteria should be whether the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Btw, we've lost sight of the fact this case should've had an independent counsel, that it didn't is in itself a subversion of the law. The man who is ultimately responsible for prosecuting the criminal is campaigning with her on the day of the announcement! Edit: http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing--not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865 I actually don't agree with him. The government has all the power. If you don't believe it, try refusing to pay your taxes.

Here are a couple more opinions on "intent": http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/06/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-rewrote-the-statute-to-give-hillary-clinton-a-pass/ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/05/fmr-ag-mukasey-hillary-violated-felony-standard-of-gross-negligence-others-have-been-prosecuted-for-far-less/

I just popped in but curious about this: is it confirmed there's no need to prove intent to show negligence, or is that something you've surmised? I'm only educated in German law, but the big difference between crimes of negligence is that you don't need to prove intent, only that someone conducted themselves in a manner that was so obviously negligent that they should've known better. (example, driving a car while intoxicated) Wish I were educated enough in US law because I too would be curious to know the circumstances she needs to meet to qualify as "grossly negligent." Gromnir went over that in his previous post, but I'm not sure I entirely understand. To me if you have a usb stick you forgot you put in your pocket and left a secure location with it, then there's no intent and no gross negligence. If you intentionally sent what you know is a top secret email over what you know is an unsecure channel, then there's intent and gross negligence.

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

Instances aren't enough. You need to establish intent, and have the evidence to convince a jury of it beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the FBI has concluded that a smart defense attorney wouldn't have a particularly hard time establishing enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So long as there's a chance that Clinton set this up for non-classified stuff, but had a few "whoopsies" along the way, a prosecution was doomed to fail. 100 or so bits of classified information in a population in the tens of thousands is bad, but it's not clear-indication-of-intentional-misconduct bad. What you said doesn't make sense. If it's intentional, than it establishes intent, no? How stupid would a jury have to be to believe that she didn't know that as a Secretary of State she would be involved in discussions involving classified material? How stupid would they have to be to believe she simply forgot the top secret emails she sent were going out from her private server over the public internet? Punish the hero, reward the villain: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

How's setting up an insecure private server to send above top secret emails not an instance of intentional and willful mishandling of classified information?

“For example, seven e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails about those same matters.” Given that, how anyone objective could reach the conclusion that Comey reached is mind-boggling.

That's right, "extremely careless" is two clicks away from "grossly negligent".

https://twitter.com/VodkaPundit/status/750349611949142016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This happened in the White Water case too, the prosecutors had the indictment against Hilzilla drawn up, but decided she's too famous and admired for any jury to convict her, so never went ahead with the indictment. Here's more on the legal issues: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/05/hmmm-fbi-director-to-meet-press-take-off-camera-questions-at-11/ "On Twitter, there’s been a lot of “the FBI didn’t find a malicious intent” pushback against criticism, but that statute expressly doesn’t require malicious intent for prosecution. It expressly states that “gross negligence” meets the standard for criminal prosecution, and Comey spent most of the presser making the case for gross negligence. And once again, if Comey thinks that this multiple-server e-mail scheme doesn’t rise to the level of prosecution, why is the DoJ prosecuting Kristian Saucier, a sailor who took a few cell-phone photos of his submarine for his own personal mementoes?"

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position… should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that information,” Comey continued. How is what Petraeus had done any worse than this?

So gross negligence that causes harm to national security is no longer a crime?

Hadn't come up. It was drab. Once an American naval ship put in for a visit. To me the Americans looked like pudgy pink piglets. To them we must have looked grey and cadaverous. WOD this is a huge development. I cant believe you only raising this now , this changes or adds context to everything you have said around politics....this is a huge update. You have had debates with our friends in the EU and I always assumed your knowledge was just about Texas but this really adds to the narrative But if its okay I have many questions but not now, do you mind answering questions at a later stage? I don't mind answering questions, but depending on what they are you might PM me, as not everyone may be interested in that kind of exchange.

Hadn't come up. It was drab. Once an American naval ship put in for a visit. To me the Americans looked like pudgy pink piglets. To them we must have looked grey and cadaverous.

We call this Freedom. WOD I have a suggestion that you have probably considered but then thought it was silly You have always been honest about your issues with the current state of the USA but what your view may be unintentionally missing is maybe you just need a change of scenery for a while. Now I respect your open patriotism to Texas but I am talking about a sabbatical for 6-12 months. But you need to go somewhere like California, somewhere where someone like Hurlshot lives who is positive about the USA I think 12 months living in California will change or maybe lesson some of your negative views? Now tell me honestly, are you stoned right now? I don't need to live in California, I spent first 13 years of my life in the Soviet Union.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0405/6307082a.html article date is 1999. HA! Good Fun! ps w/o emotes some o' you folks don't get sarcasm, so just pretend we included whatever is the current snark tag. "In so doing, the newcomers would attach themselves to the dynamic U.S. economy, leaving behind the stagnancy and depressing statism of Europe." Too late, we've been fundamentally transformed.

We call this Freedom.

This whole discussion will probably become moot once the FBI announces their findings, which hopefully will be soon.

First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime. The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process. That's contrary to everything I've read on the subject. She would decide if the case was presented to the grand jury to start with, no? Which begs the question from where and from whom have you read regarding the subject matter? Look, we have senior career FBI agents, analysts, other specialists, and their supervisors making sure the investigation is done by the book and as thorough as possible. To which they are working directly with the jurisdictional U.S. Attorney's office -- led by a career senior Assistant U.S. Attorney (if not the chief of the division), and a team of AUSA's and paralegals, and with support of the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General is not going to overrule her U.S. Attorney. These guys and gals know what they're doing and don't mess around. If they believe there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they will present it to the Grand Jury seeking an indictment. Federal cases going to court have a 92% conviction rate. If they don't believe they have enough evidence, neither the FBI or the USAO will seek an indictment. Pure and simple. The AG is not part of the decision making process. What makes you so sure? Why wouldn't the AG get involved in all high profile decisions? I certainly wouldn't make any major decision for my company without checking with my boss first. What you're claiming is very hard to believe in this politicized and weaponized DOJ. Lynch has said on numerous occasions she doesn't have to follow the law, in particular with respect to Lois Lerner she specifically told Congress she didn't have to do what the law required her to do in plain language, because of "prosecutorial discretion".

First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime. The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process. That's contrary to everything I've read on the subject. She would decide if the case was presented to the grand jury to start with, no?

Well, I don't think I can beat the final boss in Underrail. And the entire final area was quite a grueling slog, I'd never know what to do in a million years without a guide. IMO the rest of the game is still well worth playing though. Started Technomancer as a consolation.

The predecessor game, Mars : War Logs is $3.74 on Steam right now. Combat should be similar, I guess you can return it if you don't like it. It used to have a demo, but I can't find it any more. Come to think of it, you should be able to return Technomancer, not sure.

You mean we shouldn't worry about opinions of English major college dropouts who think Mass Effect is the greatest RPG ever made?