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

[Town Heretic]

Why would you say such a thing? :idunno:

I told you why in my initial and subsequent responses. I'm not particularly interested in repeating it absent a good reason, which I'll come to on a few points toward the end.

Nobody knows what your objection is.

Like you even talk to most people.

So what?

So that makes the objection less than compelling, overly vague and without particular proof of actual harm.

It's not a complaint at all.

That's what I keep saying.

Your quotes were entirely unresponsive.

Not if you read and write English.

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

That's not tied to an event. I think you want it to be, but it's only tied to your assertion.

That's nice.

More, it's informative.

Utterly unresponsive as well.

It really isn't.

Or we could just not introduce precedent.

I've told you why precedent is valuable. I've told you why it isn't an absolute.

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

I'm not against bias, depending on how you're using it and whether or not it is subject to alteration by reason and rooted in reason to begin with.

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

Because that wasn't how you introduced your objection and it doesn't alter my own. You saying, a bit into it, that the misapplication of precedent can cause problems is a prima facie bit no one could object to. Misapplication of just about any principle is going to cause problems, but as I noted, that isn't a problem of precedent, but in application.

To remind those who may have entered late, this is Stripe's initial objection in its entirety:

Precedent is how justice is perverted.

Not the misapplication of precedent, but precedent itself. And that's just nonsense. He doesn't support his thesis with any particular proof of precedent functioning to do that. He simply says it's so.

That led to his next:

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

Again, Stripe doesn't prove that his assertion is true, only declares that it is. In fact, his assertion is demonstrably untrue if you understand how precedent is used within the larger process of adjudication. After that, I discussed the value of precedent to establish judicial stability, acting as wise counsel, and not it isn't in itself an absolute

Stripe then declares

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.

Which goes some distance to supporting my assertion that Stripe doesn't appear to understand precedent, despite my explanation. Precedent is legal history used to assist in uniformity of approach to the law. Reliance? It's one important consideration, but far from the only. I'd noted that too.

His dismissal of my response as unresponsive and having "nothing" to do with his comments is as objectively mistaken as his belief that no one was mentioning history...when he was, unless he doesn't understand that, which supports my initial response, again.

And so on...

 

[Stripe]

He doesn't support his thesis with any particular proof of precedent functioning to do that. He simply says it's so.

Stripe doesn't prove that his assertion is true, only declares that it is.

You've spent exactly no time addressing the actual concern.

You've got a whole lot of asserting ignorance among those you disagree with and a lot of insisting that precedent must be upheld, but nothing in the way of an actual argument against the challenge, which you don't want to even admit exists.

 

[Town Heretic]

You've spent exactly no time addressing the actual concern.

Not true. I've challenged your assertions, set them out and answered to the extent possible.

You've got a whole lot of asserting ignorance among those you disagree with

Well, no. You here and rocketman, both relating to matters of law where you give ample evidence of a bias that either precludes an understanding you're capable of, or compels you to act contrary to reason.

and a lot of insisting that precedent must be upheld,

No. I've given you the history and reason for it and it's value. I don't need to champion the law in place for its apparent utility. I'm only explaining it in the hope that at some point you listen.

but nothing in the way of an actual argument against the challenge,

Here's how it should work. You made an assertion that precedent does a thing that you fail to demonstrate it then doing. There's nothing to rebut except your feeling.

which you don't want to even admit exists.

You'll have to prove damages before redress or argument is reasonable.

You've said precedent is how justice is perverted. You've stated this is achieved by means of allowing the present to be overlooked. Neither of those is demonstrably true or illustrated by you beyond the utterance.

In fact, as I've noted, only the misuse of precedent can cause harm (one appellate courts are designed to remedy) and I don't have an instance from you of even that much, to say nothing of the rule or utility and reasons sustaining, which I've provided amply enough.

 

[Stripe]

I've challenged your assertions, set them out and answered to the extent possible.

Nope.

You've called me ignorant and insisted that your ideas exist.

You've spent exactly no time addressing the challenge.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

Your usual, in depth rebuttal notwithstanding, did too.

You've called me ignorant and insisted that your ideas exist.

I never did call you ignorant. You did that because it was your way of shifting the discussion. I'm guessing one or two people caught that. If not, more's the pity.

I said you don't appear to understand precedent.

And my ideas? Of course they exist, but I've only insisted on sharing what I know about the law.

You've spent exactly no time addressing the challenge.

You say that repeatedly without actually pointing to the sentence and point I missed.:e4e:

 

[rocketman]

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

It really doesn't matter whether she was "trying to give away secrets", the fact remains she broke numerous laws by removing, storing, and attempting to destroy classified information when she was found out. All of these actions on her part are felonies so, your point is pointless. Hillary knew darn good and well what she was doing was a crime but, she knew that lawless idiots such as yourself would allow her a pass, because you are a partisan hack just like she is.

 

[rocketman]

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

And that is where you are dead wrong, I would not care if it were a republican or a democrat for me, I have more personal reasons. I along with many Americans have kept our oaths to keep that which is secret...a secret. I know the rules quite well, I am a bit closer to it, and I obviously have a bit more reverence for it than someone such as yourself that sees something like keeping a promise to the people of the United States as more than a common thing or a rule that can be bent for someone. In short if the republican nominee was being accused of the same thing I would want to see him/her punished as well. Lady Justice should not be lifting the blindfold to see who she is judging.

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.

You are a liberal and your opinion doesn't count for the same reason that you have given to me ...you are partisan and the only ones in your corner legally are partisan as well, along with being in the vast minority so no, you have not proven there is not a double standard anymore than Loretta Lynch could.

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.

No, but I would be happy to write or give any speech to the "American People" explaining that perversion of the law for one now, opens the door for more perversion of the law for others later. You know a speech that appeals to the common citizen who actually is held to a standard.

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.

It certainly is tricky when you don't have the truth, evidence, or the statute to back up your rhetoric in which case you dance, avoid, and obfuscate...or at least that is how Lynch & Comey handled it. What a pathetic show that was indeed!

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.

And it makes a great weapon to berate others as ignorant with as well...:thumb:

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.

So, any former State AG, former federal prosecutor, Former U.S. AG, current & former judge that see this case as a double standard are just not as enlightened as you? C'mon man, if just us commoners were the only ones crying foul you would have a point but, that is simply not the case, even many in your profession see this as a legal fail as well...but they are all just partisan like me & you right? Nobody can simply see something as wrong without an ulterior motive? That would mean nobody is true to the law on either side, no?

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.

I didn't have to, better judges & lawyers than you have already rebutted Lynch & Comey publicly and if you still have your wagon hitched to those two partisan hacks than they have taken you to school as well.

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.

And the absurdity of your argument raises it's ugly head again, you assert that Hillary did not know that storing just government, let alone classified material on an unprotected server in the basement of her home was not illegal? If that were the case why did she attempt to destroy it? She committed this crime with the same intent as Petreus...to break the law, neither one intended to harm the U.S. but, both knew what they were doing was a crime. Your argument is just laughable.

Anyone who believes that is, at best, ignorant.

So I guess you in the minority are the only ones enlightened then....weak.

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.

You have not committed a felony without an adjudication.

I beg to differ...

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.

Let us be honest, you have no idea what is fueling my offense, you can only speculate but, for what it is worth you are dead wrong. Patreus just like many others that have been held to a standard when handling classified materials are just people that have paid the consequences but, Hillary is special so, she won't.

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.

If you were not so pompous, patronizing, and partisan on the issue maybe you would be thinking clearly but, I see the interference of your feelings has effected you as well, you don't even understand you are in the minority in your legal opinion, even amongst many in your own profession. We stand at impasse my friend...:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

You don't appear to understand precedent.

Why would you say such a thing? Are insults the only way you can get by?

You say that repeatedly without actually pointing to the sentence and point I missed.:e4e:

You want me to point to things you didn't say: ie, a rational response?

 

[Town Heretic]

And that is where you are dead wrong,

I'm not. I quoted a bit of the language. "Bullcrap!" was the first example.

I would not care if it were a republican or a democrat

What Republican have you publicly declared a felon?

for me, I have more personal reasons.

Personal is also an emotionally charged word. Look, I don't have a problem with passion. Be as passionate as you like, within the confines of reason and subject to it.

I along with many Americans have kept our oaths to keep that which is secret...a secret. I know the rules quite well, I am a bit closer to it, and I obviously have a bit more reverence for it than someone such as yourself that sees something like keeping a promise to the people of the United States as more than a common thing or a rule that can be bent for someone.

See, when emotion gets the best of your that sort of thing happens. Just go on and call yourself the better man if it makes you feel better. Silly business. It doesn't control any part of the conversation, but go to. What you shouldn't do is follow that up with the last of your declaration. It's just not reflective of my position.

In short if the republican nominee was being accused of the same thing I would want to see him/her punished as well. Lady Justice should not be lifting the blindfold to see who she is judging.

She still isn't. I haven't conceded your point, have argued that what's happening here is mostly about you ignoring what the head of the FBI said, what any number of legal authorities have affirmed about why no charges are forthcoming. It isn't about whether she did anything wrong. Do you remember why Comey said he wasn't prosecuting?

You are a liberal

I'm not. If hard right wingers spent less time defining others mistakenly and more time defining the particulars of their politics we wouldn't have Trump foisted on the party. I'm actually a registered Republican, though I consider myself an independent and I test out almost dead center of those ideological diagnostic predictors. I've voted mostly for conservative candidates for the larger part of my life, especially in the judiciary. Where I live the better candidates have tended to be Republicans and, wanting to be a part of that process and having to choose one affiliation or the other I made the reasonable choice. The problem with the Republican party since Reagan left it is that it's put up really bad candidates for the national office.

and your opinion doesn't count for the same reason that you have given to me ...you are partisan

Well, no. I suppose I could be accused of having a right listing bias if the metric was my voting record. And if you went by the tests I'd end up marginally to the left of dead center, within the moderate range. If you only considered my rejection of some elements of the hard right here (and were far enough into that fringe) you might consider me a liberal. You might consider anyone not in lock step with you a liberal, but you'd be mistaken.

and the only ones in your corner legally are partisan as well, along with being in the vast minority so no, you have not proven there is not a double standard anymore than Loretta Lynch could.

I don't think you could list those I'm speaking to and it isn't "my corner" it's the corner of people who aren't invested in a political win. I'm not voting for Hillary. I'm not voting for Trump. I think they're horrible candidates. I don't even think they're representative of the ideologies they purport to adhere to.

No, but I would be happy to write or give any speech to the "American People" explaining that perversion of the law for one now, opens the door for more perversion of the law for others later. You know a speech that appeals to the common citizen who actually is held to a standard.

I've already rebutted this, so I'm not going to find a new way to say the same thing I did last time, even if you feel obliged.

It certainly is tricky when you don't have the truth, evidence, or the statute to back up your rhetoric

No, proving a negative is just tricky, period. And I'm not going to go back into precedent so you can ignore it while you pound the black letter law approach again.

in which case you dance, avoid, and obfuscate...or at least that is how Lynch & Comey handled it. What a pathetic show that was indeed!

There's that emotional partisanship. It's going to make you say something especially silly, well, sillier then, in a moment.

And it makes a great weapon to berate others as ignorant with as well...:thumb:

What I've said (and it isn't berating except to someone who needs to play the victim and feed their emotional center) is that you don't understand precedent and don't appear to want to.

So, any former State AG, former federal prosecutor, Former U.S. AG, current & former judge that see this case as a double standard are just not as enlightened as you?

Who? Particularly. I've given you a couple of people of impeccable credentials who aren't a part of any political machinery. Who are you speaking to. I noted your leaning on a Republican Congressman who, by virtue of his party's ascendancy, Chairs a legal arm and used his office to object in an election cycle.

C'mon man, if just us commoners were the only ones crying foul you would have a point but, that is simply not the case, even many in your profession see this as a legal fail as well.

Again, name names. Who are you speaking to and what's their background?

I didn't have to, better judges & lawyers than you have already rebutted Lynch & Comey publicly and if you still have your wagon hitched to those two partisan hacks than they have taken you to school as well.

That was part of the sillier business I mentioned a bit ago was in route. Comey was a Republican who passed with near unanimous consent to his appointment. He's only a partisan hack to you for the same reason I'm a liberal: you're overly emotional and actual partisanship. I haven't read Lynch. I'll leave off on considering your evaluation of my acumen given you have literally no idea about it in any particular.

And the absurdity of your argument raises it's ugly head again, you assert that Hillary did not know that storing just government, let alone classified material on an unprotected server in the basement of her home was not illegal?

Quote me asserting that. That wasn't why Comey didn't prosecute. Can you recall why he said he wasn't prosecuting? I've relayed it more than once.

If that were the case why did she attempt to destroy it? She committed this crime with the same intent as Petreus...to break the law, neither one intended to harm the U.S. but, both knew what they were doing was a crime. Your argument is just laughable.

It wasn't the same as Petraeus, who admitted to knowing what he did, when he handed classified information to his girlfriend biographer, that it was wrong as he did it.

So I guess you in the minority are the only ones enlightened then....weak.

I agree your attempt was weak, but as the holder of a doctorate, according to the last census, I'm within the top 1.63% of the U.S. population in terms of education.

I beg to differ...

Rather, you beg to declare. That's not a counter to plain fact. A person is a felon when and only when convicted of a felony, which is a criminal adjudication, not a label you get to confer to suit your outrage.

Patreus just like many others that have been held to a standard when handling classified materials are just people that have paid the consequences but, Hillary is special so, she won't.

Simply untrue and for the particular reasons given prior in rebuttal as yet unmet by you except in dismissal and assurance of uncited authority that could thrash my response...which is a bark in need of teeth.

If you were not so pompous, patronizing, and partisan on the issue maybe you would be thinking clearly as well but, I see the interference of your feelings has effected you as well, you don't even understand you are in the minority in your legal opinion, even amongst people in your own profession.

Well, it was better than the "Bullcrap!" bit, but not by much. So having failed to rebut on points you waste time with "I know you are but what am I?" repackaged on the emotional and partisan points.

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Why would you say such a thing?

Because you don't appear to understand precedent. It's self-explanatory, though I fleshed out the why of it.

Are insults the only way you can get by?

It's not insulting unless you consider my pointing that out an insult.

You want me to point to things you didn't say: ie, a rational response?

Now you're being coy. I asked you to point out your challenge you keep claiming I failed to address.

I don't think it exists. I think it's a tactic to attempt to put me on the defensive and move away from having to address the problems in your position. I've answered you all along.

If I'm wrong then here's your chance, again, set it out so everyone can see that I missed it, didn't respond and can't produce quotes rebutting your assertion. I'll be the first one to say, "Son of a gun, how'd I miss that? Sorry. Here's my answer."

This is your second invitation. I'm thinking you'll find a reason to decline it, but I'd love to be surprised.

 

[Stripe]

Because you don't appear to understand precedent.

And what did I say to lead you to this insane conclusion?

It's not insulting unless you consider my pointing that out an insult.

:AMR:

When you call someone ignorant, it's an insult. I think you need to think through your approach a bit more carefully.

I asked you to point out your challenge.

It's still there as my first post. :up:

 

[CherubRam]

It really doesn't matter whether she was "trying to give away secrets", the fact remains she broke numerous laws by removing, storing, and attempting to destroy classified information when she was found out. All of these actions on her part are felonies so, your point is pointless. Hillary knew darn good and well what she was doing was a crime but, she knew that lawless idiots such as yourself would allow her a pass, because you are a partisan hack just like she is.

I do not give a damn about her gossip. Only a Bozo would make a big deal of it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Stepping over the "Do you still beat your wife" question.

The last time you phrased it better and I answered it. You don't understand precedent or how it works within the adjudication system when you declare it prevents consideration of the present case. It doesn't. I set out what it actually does and in relation to other considerations, as well as noting that when judges or juries make errors in judgment those judgments are subject to review at the appellate level.

When you call someone ignorant, it's an insult.

So every time you got an answer wrong on a test and a teacher pointed it out you accused them of insulting you? lain:

In any event it's a funny complaint from a fellow who is comfortable calling everyone who supports democracy a pansy and literally calling me one for defending the notion.

I think you need to think through your approach a bit more carefully.

I think you dance divinely.

It's still there as my first post. :up:

Well, I answered that first post. So I guess you're not going to point out the thing you felt wasn't particularly addressed.

I didn't think you would. I've already said why. :e4e:

 

[rocketman]

I do not give a damn about her gossip. Only a Bozo would make a big deal of it.

Gossip? It is obvious that you are oblivious to what this sorry excuse for a woman has done, you really are a booger eating moron aren't you?

 

[rocketman]

Well, it was better than the "Bullcrap!" bit, but not by much. So having failed to rebut on points you waste time with "I know you are but what am I?" repackaged on the emotional and partisan points.

lain:

What a partisan tool...you have been accusing, and pontificating your version of "I know you are but what am I?" since you engaged me on this subject, and you have yet to prove that there is not a double standard. You accuse me of being partisan yet you regurgitate every weak liberal viewpoint that have been rejected wholly by legal experts and the American people alike, yet you assert you cannot be wrong, & everyone that rejects the two political hacks Lynch & Comey are somehow just not enlightened enough...Very weak counselor or should I say it is a bunch of Bullcrap, either makes my point. I think we are done here, the rest of you post is just more of the same, we will have to agree to disagree. lain:

 

[CherubRam]

Gossip? It is obvious that you are oblivious to what this sorry excuse for a woman has done, you really are a booger eating moron aren't you?

Prove it.

 

[Stripe]

You don't understand precedent.

Rubbish. Is it the only way you can operate, assuming anybody you disagree with does not have understanding?

You declare it prevents consideration of the present case.

I do?

No, I don't. And here's you tying my comment to a particular case.

So every time you got an answer wrong on a test and a teacher pointed it out you accused them of insulting you?

Nope. If I expressed an opinion that they disagreed with and called me ignorant because of that, they'd get the same treatment.

It's a funny complaint from a fellow who is comfortable calling everyone who supports democracy a pansy and literally calling me one for defending the notion.

Oh, you want to talk about democracy now?

Well, I answered that first post.

Nope. You did nothing to engage sensibly.

 

[rocketman]

Prove it.

Don't have to, you proved it yourself when you posted moron.

 

[rocketman]

Rubbish. Is it the only way you can operate, assuming anybody you disagree with does not have understanding?

Seems to be the common theme anyway...lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Rubbish.

That's an outburst, not an argument or counter. I've set out, in particular, why you appear mistaken on the point. When you say something like

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

That's just not how it works. You never lose sight of the present facts by virtue of applying precedent to how you approach them. Precedent doesn't increase the likelihood of ignoring evidence. That's a statement that tells anyone with a legal education that you don't understand the process. Simple as that.

No, I don't. And here's you tying my comment to a particular case.

That's not a particular case. That's an illustration of principle. If you're going to say I'm calling you ignorant because I'm noting that you don't understand precedent then you'd have to be as offended each time anyone knew something you didn't and shared it with you.

That's a bit on the unproductively tender side of things.

Nope. If I expressed an opinion that they disagreed with and called me ignorant because of that, they'd get the same treatment.

I never called you ignorant. You repeatedly said that I did, but the closest I came was in responding to you using it and reducing the application to the particular of precedent.

Oh, you want to talk about democracy now?

No, I'm noting that while you're busy inventing a reason to be offended you're indifferent to offering insult and offense to others.

It's peculiar.

Nope. You did nothing to engage sensibly.

You're an artichoke. lain: Now we've both said things we can't possibly demonstrate.