The Next President of the United States: IV

[loppar]

@smh_23

When your candidate is too much of a bumbling cretin for the guys who give orders to Vladimir Zhirinovsky…

Speaking about Zhirinovsky…

https://video.fzag1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t43.1792-2/14938987_1806439829635804_6054923423635734528_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MTMxNiwidmVuY29kZV90YWciOiJzdmVfaGQifQ%3D%3D&rl=1500&vabr=974&oh=4b2d68cf21f9cd9a90670962e9119172&oe=581FDC73

[magick]

@MaximusB

I think Obama pressured him to back down, just my opinion. I find this as the metric of their (Democrats) concern as they see the numbers. A week ago, Hillary was trying to expand the map in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. Now, she is trying to defend typical Democratic strongholds like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado.

Then why would he initially say that the FBI found info that may lead them to re-opening the case?

Did the pressure lessen?

[MaximusB]

Pressure by disgruntled FBI colleagues who spent countless hours investigating Clinton Inc. and feeling undercut when Comey originally dismissed filing charges in July. Comey runs the risk of his colleagues leaking details of the investigation, which in the end could make Comey look bad.

[treco]

Would you believe HRC is innocent of mishandling classified material after:

previous releases of FBI statements, circumstantial evidence of destroyed computers & phones, emails permanently erased after subpoena, immunity given to top aides for next to no return in testimony, plethora of 5th Ammendments when investigated, ovelooking WJC improper conversation and already announced continuation of position with AG upon HRC election,

If there were a diffe4ent GOP candidate say Kasich?

IOW - is she innocent or does your dislike of Trump trump that?

[MaximusB]

After reading your post, Hillary doesn’t have skeletons in her closet, she has a goddam cemetery.

[Sloth]

@treco

Would you believe HRC is innocent of mishandling classified material…

I doubt few believe otherwise. However, elites have sub-levels of gross negligence that actually never reach ‘gross negligence.’ Like Extreme Carelessness. So life goes on.

[treco]

Dont move the goalpost

Innocent or hatred of Trump is good enough reason?

Come on @smh_23 @ActivitiesGuy @Aragorn @thunderbolt23 @anon50325502
Lets hear it

[thunderbolt23]

Hear what? I missed it.

[magick]

@MaximusB

Pressure by disgruntled FBI colleagues who spent countless hours investigating Clinton Inc. and feeling undercut when Comey originally dismissed filing charges in July. Comey runs the risk of his colleagues leaking details of the investigation, which in the end could make Comey look bad.

Doesn’t Comey already look bad by saying that there was nothing after all?

[treco]

My post a couple up from here

[thunderbolt23]

@treco - I’ve never maintained that Hillary was innocent. Far from it, I explained in depth why she should be indicted based on Comey’s own recitation of the facts and conclusion on her judgment (reckless carelessness = gross negligence).

Which is why I am thrilled not to be voting for her.

[therajraj]

@thunderbolt23

@therajraj

Culture is a reflection of the country’s demographics.

The US is culturally derived from people of British Isles stock.

Culture is more than a reflection of demographics because culture isn’t a function of racial determinism (there’s no such thing, despite what your reptilian overmasters at the white nationalist websites you visit keep telling you).

But in any event, a point you keep skipping over - it’s our culture, not yours, and our culture is and has always allowed for immigrants to join. That is our history, our tradition, our culture - and you are an unwelcome alien trying to change a culture that doesn’t belong to you. Thus, as we’ve stated a million times, you violate your own sacred principle of respecting cultural purity by insisting that immigrants are undermining the culture.

Speaking of cultural purity, let’s have some fun. So insistent you are about the US being a culturally pure offshoot of “people of the British Isles”, we surely should see all of our important places in our country reflective of that purity with their names, dating back to the birth of the country. Right?

Oh dear:

List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States - Wikipedia

Someone needs to inform our forbears that naming states such things as “Kentucky” (Native American) and “Texas” (Spanish) violated Raj’s rule that deviation from our “British Isles” cultural playbook (the Dutch will be furious) as obviously un-American.

Say, who knew early Americans were so un-American?

Maybe Raj and his hero racist creeps can start petitioning to rename each state along proper “British Isles” names. Raj, you should start with Texas, one of the worst violators of cultural betrayal back in the mid-1800s (using the language of those no-good Hispanics, Raj!). I am sure Texans will see it your way and immediately recognize they’ve been traitors to American culture all this time.

Keep us posted how that goes.

We can ignore the British derived customs, traditions, form of government, racial heritage, religion all because some of the names of places are derived from elsewhere. Dumb

BTW what’s the deal with Liberia? Still no answer there.

[therajraj]

@SkyzykS

You like that painting enough to by it but don’t see the multi-cultural juxtapositions it is composed of?

I can’t tell if you are a misunderstood genius or if you actually don’t understand your own self to such an extent that is truly astounding.

I love diversity here’s the other painting I bought

[smh_23]

@treco

Dont move the goalpost

Let’s figure out where the goalposts are. Are you saying that she should have been indicted? If so, my position is what I’ve read from legal authorities I follow: per the letter of the law, she absolutely could have been indicted – however, prosecutors do not indict under conditions like the ones that obtained in her case, and a refusal to issue indictment was perfectly reasonable. Whether you agree with the latter or not, I’m sure you’re aware that I can cite well-credentialed arguments in its support. For example:

But unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.

The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place,” a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.

Vladeck said the law is not “well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn’t dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power.”

Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said Comey’s decision was “completely consistent” with every case brought for leaking classified government information.

Defendants in other cases include Stephen Kim, Lowell’s client who pleaded guilty to leaking State Department documents to the press, as well as former C.I.A. Director General David Petraeus. He admitted to keeping classified information, which he would also share with his biographer, in his home, while telling the government he had returned all such information.

“The one common denominator of all such cases is that the individual involved intentionally sent material to those not authorized to receive it, like the press, like a foreign government,” Lowell said.

(REUTERS)

Or

…very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes, either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don’t get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she’d have to be significantly below the law.

Comey’s recommendation in this regard is unambiguous: “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

His reasoning, at least in my judgment, is clearly correct.

(Benjamin Wittes)

Or

Some argue that prosecution was warranted because not all of the relevant laws require intent (an important potentially applicable one, 18 USC 793(f), requires only “gross negligence”), and because the government needs to send a strong signal to protect the integrity of the classified information system. I do not view this as an unreasonable position, at least based on the information Comey provided yesterday. On the other hand, there are many hurdles to a successful prosecution even assuming the “gross negligence” standard is the right one here.

The prosecution would be entirely novel, and would turn in part on very tricky questions about how email exchanges fit into language written with physical removal of classified information in mind. Though he did not say so explicitly, Comey might have concluded that a conviction in this context was, for many reasons, unlikely—a clear reason not to prosecute. He probably also considered broader public policy considerations that prosecutors often take into account—considerations that cut in many different directions, to be sure. It’s unclear whether Comey was right to say that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton—it is just hard to say, one way or another, based on the information he provided yesterday. But Comey explained the general basis for his decision and took full responsibility for it.

(Jack Goldsmith)

---

If, on the other hand, you’re going for a more general, less-legalistic “she mishandled classified info”: then yes, you’re right. But that’s even more true of David Petraeus, who physically gave classified material to his biographer/lover…

…and I am confident that if he were the Republican nominee, every regular poster on PWI would be planning to vote for him in a couple of days.

Edit: myself included.

[MaximusB]

At this point, Comey is compromised and should probably step down.

[SkyzykS]

@therajraj

I love diversity here’s the other painting I bought

Did you buy the woman to the right viewing it too?

[MaximusB]

TB, I would like if your input on this issue, because it just seems squirrely for me at this point.

What is the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence ? I have heard opinions suggesting it’s whether or not there is intent. But I argue that the lack of intent is the very definition of negligence. Screwing up when you aren’t trying to is negligent. The way the law is written, intent is not even required.

Edit - I think SMH’s above post answers much of my question.

[thunderbolt23]

@therajraj

We can ignore the British derived customs, traditions, form of government, racial heritage, religion all because some of the names of places are derived from elsewhere. Dumb

Who said anything about ignoring them?

You’re moving the goalposts - you demand a cultural purity, then when shown such purity is and always has been a fiction, you cowardly back away from your standard of purity (without admitting it was stupid in the first place), and your response is a red herring about abandoning our political heritage, which hasn’t been done, isn’t being done, and is not in danger of being done by immigration into our country.

The real problem is you don’t know the subject on which you so desperately try to give opinions. You don’t know America - you’re learning through prejudiced and dumb Cliff Notes through fringe outlets. You don’t know its people or its traditions. You just parrot some crap you read on 4chan.

Smart people would recognize that limitation and stop making themselves look like a moron. Alas, you are not one of those people.

[thunderbolt23]

@MaximusB

What is the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence ?

Zero difference - the terms are literally synonymous.

When Comey concluded she was extremely careless, he had an indictment under the statute under gross negligence. Period.

[Sloth]

[quote=“smh_23, post:4509, topic:218984, full:true”]
[The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place,” a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.[/quote]

What’s tough about it? Was the information found solely in/on the proper place, or not? Was it found in an improper place?