New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[Catholic Crusader]

Hillary is a congenital liar and a criminal, and the most corrupt person in politics. Period. Anyone who does not see that is a blind fool. Period.

 

[Town Heretic]

Bullcrap! I understand perfectly that the law is interpreted & applied differently depending on who you are.

See, using emotionally charged verbiage, followed by misstating the point only underscores my own that you lack a real understanding of the law...and don't appear to actually want one.

In any event, my excitable friend, there is a thing called precedent and there is a thing called prosecutorial discretion that rests partially upon it. A prosecutor, in deciding whether to advance a charge, looks to several particulars, the facts at hand, the law in letter and intent, the likelihood of success, and the historical treatment. That's what happened here. You know it on some level, which is why you've now declared:

don't feel inclined, nor do I see necessity to hunt down a parallel.

This on the heels of your advance of the Petraeus parallel that, upon examination, wasn't really much of one. To be fair, I don't think you sought that out. I think you saw the talking points from authority that suited your own bias and anger and ran with it until someone...me, put it under a microscope and, on some level, you realized that when Comey said and I noted the absence of similar prosecution given the facts, we weren't lying. But that inconvenient truth didn't serve so you continue with the effort, bluster, and declaration while declaring a want of need for real, demonstrated understanding of how the process works.

If I had done the same as Hillary, I would have been convicted & sitting in a cell at leavenworth in short order but, for the lying felon Hillary....a pass. Yes, I understand how the double standard of the law works perfectly. :down:

And you're still wrong on declaring anyone a felon who hasn't actually been adjudicated one, but that's your problem on the whole, isn't it. You have your want and the facts be damned past the point where they serve it.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.........And you're still wrong on declaring anyone a felon who hasn't actually been adjudicated one,...........

You're wrong when the slimy witch committed crimes right in front of our faces!

If you saw a rapist raping a women but he ended up never going to court, would you say, Well I can't call him a rapist. Sure I saw him in the act but he hasn't actually been adjudicated one so I can't say that.

Gobbldeygook.

 

[Stripe]

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

 

[Town Heretic]

You're wrong when the slimy witch committed crimes right in front of our faces!

I know you believe that to be true. I also know you're wrong, objectively. Words mean things. When we start using them to suit our mood instead of communicate real ideas, we might as well just grunt and yell.

If you saw a rapist raping a women but he ended up never going to court, would you say, Well I can't call him a rapist. Sure I saw him in the act but he hasn't actually been adjudicated one so I can't say that.

Unlike rape, a felony is a singularly legal conclusion. It means nothing outside of that use. No one went out and "felonied" anyone, by way of. . .and that conclusion is a matter of law, of adjudication.

So he can claim he heard her lie if it suits him, but he cannot pronounce the legal judgment on the conduct without reducing the word to...what was that again?

Gobbldeygook.

Precisely.

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

It isn't, but given your lack of particular exposure or education on the point I can understand how you think that's the case. Have you ever heard of cargo cults? Or, context is really important to processing.

 

[Stripe]

It isn't.

Sure, it is.

A reliance on what has happened in the past just opens an avenue to ignore what has happened in the present.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, it is.

A reliance on what has happened in the past just opens an avenue to ignore what has happened in the present.

Rather, ignoring history dooms one to repeat its mistakes, whereas taking counsel from it is a path to wisdom and other public virtues, so long as the counsel is not slavish in nature. Precedent is one consideration, not an anchor. It is a form of authoritative counsel. Why? Because as noted jurist and former Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, put it, "The law must be stable, but it cannot stand still." There is an inherent struggle to accommodate an ever changing landscape of circumstance and the expansion or introduction of new areas of law and relating rights, while maintaining a necessary stability upon which commerce and the expectations of citizenry can rely. The common law from stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by the decision/do not disturb what is settled) has been an important part of judicial consideration from the founding of our law.

 

[rocketman]

See, using emotionally charged verbiage, followed by misstating the point only underscores my own that you lack a real understanding of the law...and don't appear to actually want one.

Please don't tell me what I am doing, you can save the patronizing drivel for your wife & kids, I am using strong verbiage which describes this situation to a tee, there are two sets of rules, if there were not she would be facing some form of consequences. The fact you attempt to defend the indefensible only proves why people detest lawyers in general, the letter & spirit of the law (this law in particular) is quite clear yet only a lawyer can attempt to twist it to allow the lawless to avoid prosecution. Congratulations counselor you should join Loretta Lynch's team she could teach you the finer skills of perverting the law. Let us watch the AG dance shall we...she is an amazing example of a modern lawyer making way for lawlessness at the highest level, I especially appreciate how she uses lots of words to give a non answer, Word Salad! Yum...

Lawless Loretta In Action

This one is even more special, Loretta is told there is a double standard and epically fails to prove different...

Loretta Establishes The Double Standard

You know TH, this kind of comes under an old saying my Dad used to use..."Don't pee up my back and tell me it's raining"...Not only has the highest legal authority in the nation failed to prove the case that there is not a double standard in the law, being grilled thoroughly by other accomplished lawyers but, so have you.

In any event, my excitable friend, there is a thing called precedent and there is a thing called prosecutorial discretion that rests partially upon it. A prosecutor, in deciding whether to advance a charge, looks to several particulars, the facts at hand, the law in letter and intent, the likelihood of success, and the historical treatment. That's what happened here. You know it on some level, which is why you've now declared:

Yea, Yea, more of the same on the level of Lawless Loretta...I may not have the piece of paper on my wall for you to accept my opinion but, the fact that a majority of Americans can see it, and the Judiciary committee sees it tells me you are just standing in a small minority trying to defend the same perversion of the law that Loretta is. Just sad really...

This on the heels of your advance of the Petraeus parallel that, upon examination, wasn't really much of one. To be fair, I don't think you sought that out. I think you saw the talking points from authority that suited your own bias and anger and ran with it until someone...me, put it under a microscope and, on some level, you realized that when Comey said and I noted the absence of similar prosecution given the facts, we weren't lying. But that inconvenient truth didn't serve so you continue with the effort, bluster, and declaration while declaring a want of need for real, demonstrated understanding of how the process works.

Yes, you scrutinized it, just as Loretta & Comey did before Congress...poorly. Again the average man can see it clear as crystal that there are rules that can only be broken by the elite without recourse. Patreaus at least was held to account for his crime, as was Sandy Berger, or John Deutch, or thousands of non-notables that are punished at some level for their crimes...even inadvertent mistakes, or where there was no intent to commit espionage but, they are not the Democrat nominee for president are they? Yes, Americans see that this whole affair is a sham & a perversion of the law for politics...plain & simple.

And you're still wrong on declaring anyone a felon who hasn't actually been adjudicated one, but that's your problem on the whole, isn't it. You have your want and the facts be damned past the point where they serve it.

She is a felon so, I will continue to refer to her as one, you can keep the lawyer semantics for the courtroom, webster defines it as I see it I especially like the synonym...Villain, fits Hillary perfectly. :thumb:

Full Definition of felon
1
: one who has committed a felony
2
archaic : villain.

I know you believe I am being emotional which is your prerogative but, I simply disagree with you vehemently, and not as a conservative because if this was a conservative I would want to see them punished as well. I am offended as an American that clearly sees two sets of standards that have been established openly, on something too important to compromise on. I am sorry that we disagree TH but, that is how I see it, and I am not alone in that feeling.

 

[rocketman]

If you had read my last link, you'd know that the state department has opening an investigation to determine if an administrative penalty such as loss of clearances or access should be imposed upon Clinton or her senior staff. That could have serious consequences to a Clinton White House, because while you can't really keep the President in the dark, it could jeapordize nominations she might want to make. Yes, Obama's State department, run by John Kerry, is investigating Clinton...but it's all politics, right? No one is just doing their job fairly?

This is legal issue that is purposely not being pursued for politics Rex, and no, a departmental investigation is just some pathetic attempt to show that something is being done, no matter how useless...it is simply eyewash.

Also, I'm not sure you can put a civilian in Leavenworth. So, if you were expecting that...

There is a civilian side to the USP at leavenworth but, that is just playing word games, you got my point, I would be in a federal penitentiary, any federal penitentiary....does the semantics fit now? :nono:

 

[rocketman]

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

This particular precedent will be a nice cornerstone to build on...lain:

 

[Stripe]

Ignoring history dooms one to repeat its mistakes.

Luckily, nobody is "ignoring history." In fact, history was not even mentioned. It is a reliance on precedent that is the problem. A reliance on past rulings opens an avenue to ignore the case of the present.

 

[Town Heretic]

I am using strong verbiage which describes this situation to a tee,

You're using emotionally charged language that reflects a strong partisan desire and disdain.

there are two sets of rules, if there were not she would be facing some form of consequences.

Simply not true, but you aren't listening to anyone who differs, even those who can and have explained the workings of the law that negate any reasonable charge of special treatment, so it won't likely change.

The fact you attempt to defend the indefensible

Rather, I'm explaining the explicable.

only proves why people detest lawyers in general,

Some people and I'd agree, it's mostly a form of ignorance.

the letter & spirit of the law (this law in particular) is quite clear yet only a lawyer can attempt to twist it to allow the lawless to avoid prosecution.

Again, untrue, as any number of legal experts have been noting for quite a while, as the head of the FBI did in giving his recommendation, ect.

Congratulations counselor you should join Loretta Lynch's team she could teach you the finer skills of perverting the law.

You should write speeches for the GOP to use at rallies before masses of people as unfamiliar with the actual particulars of charging and discretion as you were, only they'll still have an excuse to be wrong on the point.

You know TH, this kind of comes under an old saying my Dad used to use..."Don't pee up my back and tell me it's raining"

It's really nothing like that, just as your attempted use of the Petraeus case bore little resemblance to the petard it was intended to be.

Not only has the highest legal authority in the nation failed to prove the case that there is not a double standard in the law, being grilled thoroughly by other accomplished lawyers but, so have you.

Proving a negative is often tricky. Prove to me that you're fair. It goes as far as inclination for most. And, as I note from time to time, you cannot convince someone by reason of the invalidity of a position they have not reached by that same faculty. You can try, but that's about it.

I may not have the piece of paper on my wall for you to accept my opinion

The Constitution is just a piece of paper under glass until you understand it, but if you want to devalue your education then suit yourself. My "paper on the wall" is a symbol of years of training in a particular skill set related to analytical approach and the law.

but, the fact that a majority of Americans can see it,

Look, if well educated people without a specific understanding of how the law functions can get it wrong I'd expect a lot of people in general would, especially if it fit into their preconceptions about either the law, or power, or the particular players in a case.

and the Judiciary committee sees it tells me you are just standing in a small minority trying to defend the same perversion of the law that Loretta is. Just sad really...

Rather, the Chairman of the House Judiciary, a ranking Republican, issued his public disappointment in a letter, which is about as surprising as gray skies in Portland. You want a legal opinion from a ranking Democrat on that committee? Of course not. They're politicians first and foremost, making what hay they can in an election cycle. I'm not voting for and do not like either candidate. I'm none too fond of the parties they represent, though the Republicans have mostly gotten a great deal more from me than the Democrats, our best candidates tending to be found among the former, especially in the judiciary.

Yes, you scrutinized it, just as Loretta & Comey did before Congress...poorly.

You really aren't qualified to make the judgment as a matter of law and, otherwise, fail in this easy, offhanded dismissal to make any particular rebuttal on a single point of my case. So you'll excuse me if I'm unmoved by it.

Again the average man can see it clear as crystal that there are rules that can only be broken by the elite without recourse.

Supra.

Patreaus at least was held to account for his crime

Patreaus was on tape admitting that when he gave classified documents to his girlfriend-biographer he understood it to be wrong and intended to do so. Of course he was prosecuted. Each case is evaluated along lines already noted and Comey spoke to them.

, as was Sandy Berger, or John Deutch, or thousands of non-notables that are punished at some level for their crimes...even inadvertent mistakes, or where there was no intent to commit espionage but, they are not the Democrat nominee for president are they? Yes, Americans see that this whole affair is a sham & a perversion of the law for politics...plain & simple.

Anyone who believes that is, at best, ignorant.

She is a felon so, I will continue to refer to her as one, you can keep the lawyer semantics for the courtroom, webster defines it as I see it I especially like the synonym...Villain, fits Hillary perfectly. :thumb:

To begin with, you were saying she committed felonies and adjudging her, not calling her a villain. I'm sure you'd happily attach the secondary, but it's not the point of our dispute.

Full Definition of felon
1
: one who has committed a felony
2
archaic : villain.

You have not committed a felony without an adjudication.

I know you believe I am being emotional

It's not a belief, it's a certainty. You make the case yourself:

Bullcrap! I/QUOTE]
By way of example. And then:

I simply disagree with you vehemently,

That's what I said. Merriam-Webster has the primary on "vehement" as "Showing strong and often angry feelings". That's an emotional response, as evidenced above.

I am offended

People who are offended are upset. It's an emotional response, again. To be clear, I don't have anything against strong feeling, so long as it is in the service of and subject to stronger reasoning.

as an American that clearly sees two sets of standards that have been established openly, on something too important to compromise on. I

It's a mirage. Your offense is fueled by political bias and personal disdain that allows you to quickly take up the right-wing talking points, waving the Patreaus banner, by way of example, and making the same mistake the author of that attempt did before setting it in the wind, insufficiently considering the actual facts.

I am sorry that we disagree TH but, that is how I see it, and I am not alone in that feeling.

That's a better tone than most of what I've answered here, but I'd say the problem is in your feeling and its interference with an otherwise solid noggin.

 

[Town Heretic]

Luckily, nobody is "ignoring history." In fact, history was not even mentioned.

You're forgetting yourself then.

A reliance on what has happened in the past

That's you noting what isn't the present or future.

It is a reliance on precedent that is the problem. A reliance on past rulings opens an avenue to ignore the case of the present.

I answered that mistaken notion. You ignored it to tell me you didn't mention the word history while talking about the past. lain:

Here's that answer again:

Precedent is one consideration, not an anchor. It is a form of authoritative counsel. Why? Because as noted jurist and former Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, put it, "The law must be stable, but it cannot stand still." There is an inherent struggle to accommodate an ever changing landscape of circumstance and the expansion or introduction of new areas of law and relating rights, while maintaining a necessary stability upon which commerce and the expectations of citizenry can rely. The common law from stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by the decision/do not disturb what is settled) has been an important part of judicial consideration from the founding of our law.

 

[Stripe]

I answered that mistaken notion.

Nope.

You responded with a quote that had nothing to do with my comments.

And your on-topic response is unresponsive to the challenge: Precedent opens an avenue to ignore what has happened in the current case.

That precedent might be "one consideration, not an anchor" does nothing to address the problem.

 

[CherubRam]

If anyone here believes that Hillary was trying to give away secrets, then they are an idiot.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

You responded with a quote that had nothing to do with my comments.

They did, you just aren't seeing it or don't want to. You don't understand the role of precedent, apparently.

And your on-topic response is unresponsive to the challenge: Precedent opens an avenue to ignore what has happened in the current case.

That's a fairly meaningless criticism predicated on the assumption that what has happened is wrong, a thing you haven't begun to demonstrate.

Precedent is another way of saying "a consistent approach to the execution of law". It leads to uniformity and reliance, as I noted. It's also not an absolute, as I noted. "Open an avenue"? Language opens an avenue.

That precedent might be "one consideration, not an anchor" does nothing to address the problem.

You haven't established a problem, only your bias.

 

[Stripe]

You don't understand the role of precedent.

This is the best you can do? You don't agree with someone and suddenly they're ignorant?

Seriously?

That's a fairly meaningless criticism.

Because you say so?

predicated on the assumption that what has happened is wrong, a thing you haven't begun to demonstrate.

What happened? My comment was meta, not tied to any particular event.

Precedent is another way of saying "a consistent approach to the execution of law".

Unfortunately, crime is not consistent.

If we wrongly apply precedent, problems arise. We need to judge situations against what happened, not what happened in the past.

You haven't established a problem, only your bias.

What are you talking about? :AMR:

 

[Town Heretic]

This is the best you can do? You don't agree with someone and suddenly they're ignorant?

Ignorance is curable, but I didn't call you that, I more politely noted that you don't appear to understand precedent, given your complaint.

Because you say so?

No, for the reasons given prior and in that same post. Language itself can have the same charge laid against it. It's not a very meaningful complaint. Any additional consideration invites the additional chance for error, but in this case that chance is offset by the things I noted when quoting the able jurist and former Harvard law dean.

What happened? My comment was meta, not tied to any particular event.

I didn't say it was tied to an event.

Unfortunately, crime is not consistent.

The tendency of differing circumstance, particulars coming into play is one reason precedent isn't an absolute. Even sentence guides have room in them and for the same reason.

If we wrongly apply precedent, problems arise.

True, but the problem would be in the application, not precedent itself.

We need to judge situations against what happened, not what happened in the past.

Mistaken for the reasons given prior.

What are you talking about? :AMR:

Your bias, the assumption I noted that was inherent in your objection. A problem you feel needs addressing that I don't believe you establish.

 

[ok doser]

... why people detest lawyers in general...

i always figgered it wuz cuz they're recognized as amoral, dishonest, manipulative scumbags :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

You don't appear to understand precedent.

Why would you say such a thing? :idunno:

No, for the reasons given prior and in that same post.

Nobody knows what your objection is.

Language itself can have the same charge laid against it.

So what?

It's not a very meaningful complaint.

It's not a complaint at all.

Any additional consideration invites the additional chance for error, but in this case that chance is offset by the things I noted when quoting the able jurist and former Harvard law dean.

Your quotes were entirely unresponsive.

I didn't say it was tied to an event.

Sure, you did. "Meaningless criticism predicated on the assumption that what has happened is wrong, a thing you haven't begun to demonstrate."

The tendency of differing circumstance, particulars coming into play is one reason precedent isn't an absolute. Even sentence guides have room in them and for the same reason.

That's nice.

Utterly unresponsive as well.

True, but the problem would be in the application, not precedent itself.

Or we could just not introduce precedent.

Your bias, the assumption I noted that was inherent in your objection. A problem you feel needs addressing that I don't believe you establish.

So we're gonna ignore your inherent bias in your stance, I guess.

And you just got finished agreeing with me. One wonders why you couldn't have just opened with that. :idunno: