US Election 2016, part II

[Bartimaeus]

Fair 'nuff. Maybe I am projecting a little Don Quixote on him.

In my view, he didn't give up on trying to fix the inequality between whites and blacks (and other minority groups) - in whatever forms he believes inequality manifests itself as - even when blacks overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on seniors even when they overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on women's rights even when women didn't vote for him perhaps quite as well as he would've liked. The way I see it, by steadfastly refusing to give in and say, "Well, I guess Hillary's making all the decisions now! Make sure to vote for her!" as would be the norm in today's party politics, he is not giving up on the people who voted for him and his vision...and NOT Hillary and hers. He's fighting tooth and nail for those people...and the way I see it, this is how politics should be done - with a little conviction. He will still end up endorsing her after he's done everything he possibly could because convictions will require him to in the face of a lack of better options, and I can understand and respect that, even if I don't particularly like it.

 

So yes, I think it's unfair to imply that he's still in it all for himself, when it seems pretty obvious that he's not.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

I'd agree with Bartimaeus on this one. Except for Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in this race who is running on principle. Whatever you might think of that or him you have to give him credit for that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

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

[Bartimaeus]

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

 

So was Hitler...and so were Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington, and James K. Polk, and Robert E. Lee, and...

 

Convictions in of themselves don't make the (wo)man, I will agree...but at least you know where they're coming from.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Longknife]

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

 

Aren't we kind of making a rather bold, dramatic and unneccesary leap to connect dots between Bernie Sanders and Stalin?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

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

 

Aren't we kind of making a rather bold, dramatic and unneccesary leap to connect dots between Bernie Sanders and Stalin?

 

That's not exactly what I did, but here you go: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-or-out-and-out-stalinistist/

[Leferd]

 

Fair 'nuff. Maybe I am projecting a little Don Quixote on him.

In my view, he didn't give up on trying to fix the inequality between whites and blacks (and other minority groups) - in whatever forms he believes inequality manifests itself as - even when blacks overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on seniors even when they overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on women's rights even when women didn't vote for him perhaps quite as well as he would've liked. The way I see it, by steadfastly refusing to give in and say, "Well, I guess Hillary's making all the decisions now! Make sure to vote for her!" as would be the norm in today's party politics, he is not giving up on the people who voted for him and his vision...and NOT Hillary and hers. He's fighting tooth and nail for those people...and the way I see it, this is how politics should be done - with a little conviction. He will still end up endorsing her after he's done everything he possibly could because convictions will require him to in the face of a lack of better options, and I can understand and respect that, even if I don't particularly like it.

 

So yes, I think it's unfair to imply that he's still in it all for himself, when it seems pretty obvious that he's not.

And bless him for that. I like Sanders and have always had that stance.

 

But Sanders is a zealot, and zealots tend to have myopic tunnel vision and can't bend or pivot to the political realities.

 

Lots of what he stands for is still actually part of the traditional Democratic party platform and will continue to be championed by a Clinton administration.

 

I prefer my leaders to have the longview and flexibility to adjust to the situation and make the deals, compromises, and wherewithal necessary to have a functional and progressive government.

 

Obviously, the Clintons get a lot of flak for being politicians. Well, that's not necessarily a bad thing in my view.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Leferd

[Wrath of Dagon]

Looks like Republicans are ripping Comey a new one:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-james-comey-lied-to-fbi-meadows/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/

 

How do you consider criminal charges and ignore possible perjury? This is unbelievable, what a clown.

 

Edit: Hilzilla gave access to classified info to lawyers without security clearance: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-comey-admits-gave-classified-info-non-cleared-lawyers/

 

Again, how is this different from what Petraeus did?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

Stalin had principles? I suppose monomania is a principle, of sorts, but it isn't what most people would recognise as being principled. Otherwise he was just a petty thug who hitched a ride to communism as a way of getting power.

 

The difference between Petraeus and Clinton is clearly one of provable intent. Petraeus leaked classified material to someone he was boffing and who was writing a biography on him, Clinton did not (provably) deliberately leak classified material, she was just (provably) an incompetent moron- which isn't a crime so long as she wasn't grossly negligent. What exactly the point is of having 'gross negligence' as a standard at all when to practical purposes it is the same as being 'deliberate' is I don't know, but it is what it is. And while it would be nice to see Hillary in court defending herself by saying she was an idiot or that she "couldn't recall" that would not be enough to convict. I'd have liked to see Comey try at least, personally, but political shankings are not a legit reason for criminal proceedings and most of the opinions I've seen prior to his recommendation were that Comey has integrity. Bottom line is that Petraeus did it deliberately- and ended up pleading guilty to one charge at least- Clinton can at least plausibly claim that she did not and was just 'mistaken' or whatever.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Stalin had principles? I suppose monomania is a principle, of sorts, but it isn't what most people would recognise as being principled. Otherwise he was just a petty thug who hitched a ride to communism as a way of getting power.

Don't get me wrong, Stalin was one of the great monsters of history, but I think you mischaracterize him. The person who did the most to win WW2, who confounded Western powers, and made a backwards, poor, illiterate nation into a super-power can not be what you say.

 

The difference between Petraeus and Clinton is clearly one of provable intent. Petraeus leaked classified material to someone he was boffing and who was writing a biography on him, Clinton did not (provably) deliberately leak classified material, she was just (provably) an incompetent moron- which isn't a crime so long as she wasn't grossly negligent. What exactly the point is of having 'gross negligence' as a standard at all when to practical purposes it is the same as being 'deliberate' is I don't know, but it is what it is. And while it would be nice to see Hillary in court defending herself by saying she was an idiot or that she "couldn't recall" that would not be enough to convict. I'd have liked to see Comey try at least, personally, but political shankings are not a legit reason for criminal proceedings and most of the opinions I've seen prior to his recommendation were that Comey has integrity. Bottom line is that Petraeus did it deliberately- and ended up pleading guilty to one charge at least- Clinton can at least plausibly claim that she did not and was just 'mistaken' or whatever.

She deliberately gave classified info to lawyers who had no security clearance, at least Petraeus mistress had security clearance, it just wasn't high enough. Gross negligence standard does not require intent to break the law, only that the actions be intentional. Comey is playing word games by saying without intent he can't win the case. Assuming Comey isn't corrupt, he choked, it was just too big a step to take and he punted.

[Gromnir]

we see that there is still ubiquitous misunderstanding regarding gross negligence.

 

please looks above at our earlier post.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/87025-us-election-2016-part-ii/?p=1825704

 

we gave multiple examples o' gross negligence.  doug shoots somebody in the leg but doesn't intend to kill.  doug drives while drunk and 'causes a fatal accident.  doug uses bungee cords to strap down a child in a car. please note that in all such cases, doug intended to commit a crime, but he did not have intent to commit homicide.  fumbduckery doesn't result in a get-out-of-jail-free card for doug.  again, doug actual had criminal intent in all our examples, but it just weren't the ordinary requisite intent w/o the benefit o' a statute that makes gross negligence applicable.  

 

again, gross negligence is not simple a measure o' horrible mistake. negligence is mistake.  gross negligence requires fumbduckery and an otherwise unlawful act. is more than a terrible mistake.  

 

*shrug*

 

gross negligence were gonna be extreme difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  we didn't follow the hearings today, but is our understanding that a clinton prosecution for gross negligence woulda' been a singular and noteworthy exception.  people has been disciplined and/or fired for similar stoopidity as displayed by clinton and her people, but has never been criminalization.  

 

that being said, am thinking that the bigger picture is being missed by folks on the right who is distracted by the allure o' a potential criminal indictment. comey is not gonna be able to do clinton any favors with these hearings unless rebublicans make it seem like they is involved in a witch-hunt.  comey weren't investigating clinton regarding her truthfulness to the public or Congress, so such questions directed at comey is little more than grandstanding.  is our opinion that republicans should be focusing instead on the details o' "extremely careless."  the magnitude o' clinton's stoopidity in this matter must be brobdingnagian.  instead o' trying to find a way to criminalize clinton, we see far more potential clinton pain in revealing that a future President o' the United States of America were comically inept.

 

 

trump is already viewed as a cartoon character by folks who dislike him.  curiously enough, trump can't hurt his image by saying stoopid stuff.  somehow when trump blurts out idiocy, folks who like him see such as genuine... trump, at least, is real.

 

*snort*

 

part o' the appeal o' clinton over trump is that she is a competent politician who would represent the office with appropriate dignity.  republicans can serious diminish that perception. turn clinton into a joke.  make her a punchline.  has folks think o' clinton as cartoonishly incompetent.  if Gromnir wanted to hurt clinton's Presidential aspirations, we would be focusing on her incompetence rather than her potential criminal liability.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 8, 2016 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

I don't give a damn who is President come January. As long as one or both houses of Congress is in the hands of the opposite party as the President I'll sleep soundly. 

[Zoraptor]

 

Stalin had principles? I suppose monomania is a principle, of sorts, but it isn't what most people would recognise as being principled. Otherwise he was just a petty thug who hitched a ride to communism as a way of getting power.

Don't get me wrong, Stalin was one of the great monsters of history, but I think you mischaracterize him. The person who did the most to win WW2, who confounded Western powers, and made a backwards, poor, illiterate nation into a super-power can not be what you say.

 

 

Well yeah, in his own way Stalin was quite brilliant, but he didn't do his education or modernisation programmes out of altruism or even patriotism, he did them for the same reason he'd also randomly kill off groups of people: because it made him more powerful. For that reason he has more in common with Al Capone or Pablo Escobar- both quite brilliant in their own ways- than any genuinely principled leader.

 

 

The difference between Petraeus and Clinton is clearly one of provable intent. Petraeus leaked classified material to someone he was boffing and who was writing a biography on him, Clinton did not (provably) deliberately leak classified material, she was just (provably) an incompetent moron- which isn't a crime so long as she wasn't grossly negligent. What exactly the point is of having 'gross negligence' as a standard at all when to practical purposes it is the same as being 'deliberate' is I don't know, but it is what it is. And while it would be nice to see Hillary in court defending herself by saying she was an idiot or that she "couldn't recall" that would not be enough to convict. I'd have liked to see Comey try at least, personally, but political shankings are not a legit reason for criminal proceedings and most of the opinions I've seen prior to his recommendation were that Comey has integrity. Bottom line is that Petraeus did it deliberately- and ended up pleading guilty to one charge at least- Clinton can at least plausibly claim that she did not and was just 'mistaken' or whatever.

She deliberately gave classified info to lawyers who had no security clearance, at least Petraeus mistress had security clearance, it just wasn't high enough. Gross negligence standard does not require intent to break the law, only that the actions be intentional. Comey is playing word games by saying without intent he can't win the case. Assuming Comey isn't corrupt, he choked, it was just too big a step to take and he punted.

 

The problem there is the same as with accusations of perjury, in order for it to perjury you have to be able to show that Hillary deliberately lied. She clearly did lie in the sense that what she said was false, but if she did it in the genuine belief that it was true it isn't perjury, it's just plain old being wrong. If she supplied her lawyers with information genuinely believing that it was non classified then that would be negligent, but not grossly negligent. And you have to be able to prove that it was deliberate or grossly negligent, not just think it was.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary deliberately used the server to avoid FOI and inconvenient paper trails and I think she has lied through her teeth repeatedly and deliberately. But I ultimately have to agree with Comey that he'd have no chance of actually convicting her. It would be different if she was a random Joe/Jill instead of Hillary Clinton, but she is Hillary Clinton.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course he wanted power, but he was also a true believer in communism. And in a way he was a patriot, the kind who cares about the state but not so much the individuals.

 

As far as a chance to convict, as I said before it's whether he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether he can win. And if they can't prove it in this case, they can't prove it in any case. Corporate crime has been proved on far flimsier evidence than this. Otherwise we don't have equal justice, as you say.

 

Edit: The Feds have obtained plenty of convictions where there was neither gross negligence nor intent to break the law: http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/06/no-more-accidental-criminals

Edited July 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

Edit: The Feds have obtained plenty of convictions where there was neither gross negligence nor intent to break the law: http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/06/no-more-accidental-criminals

find a conviction under the applicable statute.  we will wait. compare to such stuff as epa or traffic statutes is not gonna be helpful, or relevant. 

 

and for reasons stated by comey multiple times, the attempt to pioneer new legal ground would be a fail in any event.  is not an easy burden for a prosecutor to overcome.  has never been a gross negligence conviction under the statute. 'ccording to comey, only once since 1917 when the statute were passed has there ever been an attempt to utilize gross negligence as 'posed to actual intent.  sure as hell ain't gonna use negligence or, god forbid, strict liability as the ridiculous article linked suggests.

 

keep looking to random sources that appear to support what you wanna believe is not a good way to educate self.

 

nytimes coverage were a bit sketchy, so we will avoid linking

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_comeyhearing-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 8, 2016 by Gromnir

[Valsuelm]

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

 

Ha!

 

 

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

 

So was Hitler...and so were Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington, and James K. Polk, and Robert E. Lee, and...

 

Ha! Ha!

Edited July 8, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

If Bernie endorses Hillary, which is extremely likely (my money has been on it for months), it's all the proof any rationally thinking and even partially politically informed person needs that he is absolutely not a man of principle.

 

Neverminding all the other arguable evidence there is out there that he isn't at this point....
 

Bernie actually has (or rather at this point: had) a significant amount of rationally thinking at least partially informed folks in his corner....

[Zoraptor]

That really depends on how he endorses her. He's already said he'd be voting for her if he lost which is an endorsement to most practical purposes. If he talks about how bad Trump is rather than how awesome Hillary is there's no principle violation, and he can actually hit most of his talking points without directly criticising Hillary. It would only violate his principles if he actually thought Trump was a better candidate since Hillary is the only other viable candidate or if he starts waxing lyrical about Wall Street, SuperPACs and the like.

 

More realistically he could order his supporters to vote Hillary, which would definitely be a mistake- I'd expect only a personal and fairly limited endorsement.

[Meshugger]

What's this that i am hearing about Comey admitting Clinton giving access to SAPs to her own people that of which the congress are not allowed to view in an open hearing and it is considered classified by a governmental organization that he refuses to name and on top of that he refuses to comment on the Clinton Foundation.

 

What kind of Deus Ex scenario is this with shadow organizations working aloof in your midst?

 

Found it (04:30 and onward):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHYqp0ZxUI

 

(ignore the spooky stuff, the source is still from the raw footage)

Edited July 8, 2016 by Meshugger

[Bartimaeus]

Congress grilling Comey about Hillary giving out classified information, for anyone who wants to see.

 

[Meshugger]

Congress grilling Comey about Hillary giving out classified information, for anyone who wants to see.

 

 

They saw the emails, but they didn't read them. Huh, kinda like smoking marijuana without inhaling.

 

I wish it was the later scenario.

[Guard Dog]

The more Comey says on Capital Hill the less credibility his statement on Tuesday has.

[Guard Dog]

Trey Gowdy is da man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8pnk2rvYo

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Edit: The Feds have obtained plenty of convictions where there was neither gross negligence nor intent to break the law: http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/06/no-more-accidental-criminals

find a conviction under the applicable statute.  we will wait. compare to such stuff as epa or traffic statutes is not gonna be helpful, or relevant. 

 

and for reasons stated by comey multiple times, the attempt to pioneer new legal ground would be a fail in any event.  is not an easy burden for a prosecutor to overcome.  has never been a gross negligence conviction under the statute. 'ccording to comey, only once since 1917 when the statute were passed has there ever been an attempt to utilize gross negligence as 'posed to actual intent.  sure as hell ain't gonna use negligence or, god forbid, strict liability as the ridiculous article linked suggests.

 

keep looking to random sources that appear to support what you wanna believe is not a good way to educate self.

 

nytimes coverage were a bit sketchy, so we will avoid linking

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_comeyhearing-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Lots of prominent lawyers think she could've been indicted, so they don't agree with you or Comey. So gross negligence standard can be used in lots of other cases, but not under the espionage statue, even though it's explicitly in the statue? Doesn't make sense. And your definition of gross negligence doesn't make sense either, if I leave a manhole cover open and someone falls in and gets killed, I'm not liable? Good to know. Comey bent over backwards to find a way not to indict her, both on gross negligence and intent, since she knowingly exposed top secret info to both her lawyers and her network admins.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Edit: The Feds have obtained plenty of convictions where there was neither gross negligence nor intent to break the law: http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/06/no-more-accidental-criminals

find a conviction under the applicable statute.  we will wait. compare to such stuff as epa or traffic statutes is not gonna be helpful, or relevant. 

 

and for reasons stated by comey multiple times, the attempt to pioneer new legal ground would be a fail in any event.  is not an easy burden for a prosecutor to overcome.  has never been a gross negligence conviction under the statute. 'ccording to comey, only once since 1917 when the statute were passed has there ever been an attempt to utilize gross negligence as 'posed to actual intent.  sure as hell ain't gonna use negligence or, god forbid, strict liability as the ridiculous article linked suggests.

 

keep looking to random sources that appear to support what you wanna believe is not a good way to educate self.

 

nytimes coverage were a bit sketchy, so we will avoid linking

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_comeyhearing-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Lots of prominent lawyers think she could've been indicted, so they don't agree with you or Comey. So gross negligence standard can be used in lots of other cases, but not under the espionage statue, even though it's explicitly in the statue? Doesn't make sense. And your definition of gross negligence doesn't make sense either, if I leave a manhole cover open and someone falls in and gets killed, I'm not liable? Good to know. Comey bent over backwards to find a way not to indict her, both on gross negligence and intent, since she knowingly exposed top secret info to both her lawyers and her network admins.

 

for not proper returning a manhole cover? chances are you would not be criminally liable.  thank goodness.  why would you wanna send somebody to prison if it were an honest mistake?  sure, you would face civil liability, so you would likely be paying for the mistake for the rest of your life, but w/o intent we rare send folks to prison.  seriously, what kinda screwed up world is you trying to advocate wherein honest mistakes in judgement w/o any criminal behavior is resulting in criminal liability?  even when such liability exists in statutes, rare does prosecutors and/or finders of fact criminalize such behavior. 

 

gross negligence is an option to prevent fumbduckery from allowing folks to literal/figurative get away with murder.  is not ordinary. extreme limited number o' situations.  requires statute.  

 

and comey already addressed the Congressman's concerns, most o' whom is lawyers.  the statute that clinton would be criminalized under has been in existence for 99 years, and never has there been a criminal conviction using the gross negligence provision.  the lawyers who has pretended to be baffled by the fbi recommendation is treating the situation as if it were a 1st year law school crim law exam question rather than a real world prosecution. yes, under the letter o' the law, there is potential liability for clinton.  yes, clinton deserves some kinda punishment. unfortunately, comey, a dyed-in-wool republican and a no-nonsense advocate o' law and order, has observed that in the Real World where most o' us live, no reasonable prosecutor would willingly take such a case to trial.  some o' the questions is genuine mind boggling. prosecute clinton's attorneys for viewing documents that after-the-fact were revealed to be classified?  comey is having a hard time answering questions from Congress 'cause such is often ludicrous even if they seem valid to the average and uneducated.  

 

hell, You linked to an article that were using strict liability examples as some kinda proof o' how clinton's negligence could be criminalized.  the gulf 'tween what you think you know and what is reality continues to grow rather than shrink.

 

am not a fan of the clintons.  bush gets blame for the recent economic problems, but the banking fails that led to the real estate implosion began 'cause o' the clinton administration.  is too many examples o' both clintons being dishonest.  in spite o' bruce feelings on the subject, the obama administration handling o' the middle-east, russia and a whole laundry list o' foreign policy issues is gonna, in years to come, be case studies in incompetence... and we ain't yet certain how much clinton supported the general erosion o' US influence 'cross the globe. etc.  we don't mind seeing clinton squirm.  even so, this email thing is getting predictable ridiculous.  am understanding that the point o' the hearings is actual to damage clinton's Presidential hopes as 'posed to getting at the truth o' what illegal activity, if any, were resulting from clinton's monumental stoopid private server, but as Gromnir is actual naive enough to still have respect for the integrity o' the process, what we is seeing and hearing makes us a bit nauseated.  

 

clinton supporters is gonna see a witch hunt.

 

folks who hate clinton is gonna see a cover-up.

 

is all largely pointless as the dialogue is simple polarizing opinions that already exist.

 

HA! Good Fun!