Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.

... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?

She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.

Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.

As if to doubly emphasise that point, the specific law we are talking about states that you have to intend to send or allow to be sent, useful information, to a foreign power, to be used to the detriment of the US defence situation.

There isn't the thinnest shred of evidence that the Secretary of State had any intentions in that direction at all. She was careless with her email set up, that's all.

Hence she did not break the law, there was no crime, and therefore the FBI report said there was no grounds to charge her.

Setting up an unapproved homebrew email server blows up the "she didn't intend to break any laws" defense.
...

Except that it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's move to something more interesting; Trump is against the 5th Amendment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37414245

So Trump wants to vet immigrants to make sure they have "American values" and at the same time doesn't want a working judicial system? Can you vet Trump and throw him out for being un-American?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's move to something more interesting; Trump is against the 5th Amendment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37414245

The right to counsel is protected by the Sixth Amendment; the Fifth Amendment affords protection against self incrimination and double jeopardy.

Of course, in typical Trump fashion, his decrying of the rights enshrined by Sixth Amendment is a direct slap in the face to our Republic and her Founders. Of course, this isn't the first time where Trump has shown he's either unaware of the Sixth Amendment or just doesn't care about it.

John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

I can see Trumps remarks resonating greatly with all of the "The constitution is God except for people I don't like" types.

Well since "you are free to think what you wish as long as it's what I think" is pretty prevalent attitude in humans...

It's like you've all just given up.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's move to something more interesting; Trump is against the 5th Amendment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37414245

The right to counsel is protected by the Sixth Amendment; the Fifth Amendment affords protection against self incrimination and double jeopardy.

Of course, in typical Trump fashion, his decrying of the rights enshrined by Sixth Amendment is a direct slap in the face to our Republic and her Founders. Of course, this isn't the first time where Trump has shown he's either unaware of the Sixth Amendment or just doesn't care about it.

John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

The 5th covers this as well. Due process of law. Either way, just another indictment of how big a toolbag he is.

Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.

At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.

 sebster wrote:
Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.

At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.

He could always start insulting China more.

 djones520 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's move to something more interesting; Trump is against the 5th Amendment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37414245

The right to counsel is protected by the Sixth Amendment; the Fifth Amendment affords protection against self incrimination and double jeopardy.

Of course, in typical Trump fashion, his decrying of the rights enshrined by Sixth Amendment is a direct slap in the face to our Republic and her Founders. Of course, this isn't the first time where Trump has shown he's either unaware of the Sixth Amendment or just doesn't care about it.

John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

The 5th covers this as well. Due process of law. Either way, just another indictment of how big a toolbag he is.

True. Going way back to February even Breitbart was calling Trump out for failing to comprehend how Due Process works. There is no sliding scale of having a little or a lot of Due Process that's an incredibly ignorant understanding of our constitutional protection.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/10/trump-illegals-being-entitled-to-due-process-an-open-question/

"He will be given a fully modern and updated hospital room. And he'll probably even have room service knowing the way our country is."

I think most patients in a hospital have "room service" do they not ?

If only to save you from getting stuck behind the coma patients in the lunch line those people take forever !

Prestor Jon wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's move to something more interesting; Trump is against the 5th Amendment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37414245

The right to counsel is protected by the Sixth Amendment; the Fifth Amendment affords protection against self incrimination and double jeopardy.

Of course, in typical Trump fashion, his decrying of the rights enshrined by Sixth Amendment is a direct slap in the face to our Republic and her Founders. Of course, this isn't the first time where Trump has shown he's either unaware of the Sixth Amendment or just doesn't care about it.

John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

The 5th covers this as well. Due process of law. Either way, just another indictment of how big a toolbag he is.

True. Going way back to February even Breitbart was calling Trump out for failing to comprehend how Due Process works. There is no sliding scale of having a little or a lot of Due Process that's an incredibly ignorant understanding of our constitutional protection.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/10/trump-illegals-being-entitled-to-due-process-an-open-question/

I'd say we saw issues with this way back with Bergdahl. A man who was running to be CinC, was already determining how a court martial should have turned out. Undue command influence. It's a part of this guys narcissism. He just doesn't know when to shut his mouth.

 sebster wrote:

At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.

While I can think of all sorts of ways in which he could be worse, I realized they don't meet your plausible requirement.

Unless we find out he really did give George Lucas the idea for Jar Jar Binks.

Anyway, if you believe the rhetoric, every candidate has at least one amendment they would get rid of if they became President. Hillary would abolish the Second. Trump would abolish the Fifth (or Sixth?). Cruz (and others like him) would happily get rid of the Separation Clause from the First. In spite of all those pesky requirements listed in the Constitution for making amendments. Of course, eroding those rights over time is a different thing, but we've been happily doing that for fifteen years or else the terrorists win.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The question though is why Clinton has such a high unfavourable rating. Is it because of actual things she has done or the 20+ years witch hunt against the Clintons?

I think it's the stuff she's done, because there's a lot of it.

Like?

In some corners, because she had the audacity to defeat Saint Bernie. In other corners...different things. This is what happens when you spend so long in the public eye...inevitably mistakes, grudges and gripes stack up and come from all angles.

I still think Hillary will win unless something disastrous happens, but boy this looks like a close one, even in the electoral college. Not voting for Hillary is one thing...voting FOR Trump is another, and 40-something percent of voters should be ashamed of themselves when they do that in November.

Apparently Bush 41 may be voting for Clinton now also.

There's a lot of reasons people dont like Clinton. Many people dont like political dynasties of family members following each other into office. That also worked heavily against Jeb Bush. Clinton also came off very poorly in the 2008 primaries, essentially appearing as an entitled prima donna who was utterly flabbergasted by Obama's success and many (rightly or wrongly) view her campaign then as the origin (or one of the origins) of many of the more absurd things thrown at Obama throughout his presidency, such as Birtherism. Clinton also has historically rubbed shoulders with lots of people her demographic view as class enemies (including Trump) and hip deep in wall street corruption, and charged outrageous amounts of money for speaking at events, which makes it hard to come off as ine in touch with the common people. She has also shown a great deal of fundamental ignorance of certain fields (the internet, firearms, etc). Mostly she comes off as the stereotypical South Park "smug know it all liberal" who thinks they know whats best for everyone despite seemingly having little concept of what those lives actually entail.

This is from both ends of the spectrum. Some of it has merit, some does not, but it is strongly felt.

 gorgon wrote:


Apparently Bush 41 may be voting for Clinton now also.

Would not be surprised. He's pretty moderate compared to how the republican party has swung.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Apparently Bush 41 may be voting for Clinton now also.

Would not be surprised. He's pretty moderate compared to how the republican party has swung.

Can you blame him? How many times did Trump drag his son down in the gutters in the primary?

 djones520 wrote:
I'd say we saw issues with this way back with Bergdahl. A man who was running to be CinC, was already determining how a court martial should have turned out. Undue command influence. It's a part of this guys narcissism. He just doesn't know when to shut his mouth.

Why should he? This is a guy who insists that he'd order US troops to commit war crimes, and that US troops would execute them and that US troops are functionally rapists who can't control themselves, and must be segregated from women... and active and former military support Trump 56%. If anything, he should double down on it.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd say we saw issues with this way back with Bergdahl. A man who was running to be CinC, was already determining how a court martial should have turned out. Undue command influence. It's a part of this guys narcissism. He just doesn't know when to shut his mouth.

Why should he? This is a guy who insists that he'd order US troops to commit war crimes, and that US troops would execute them and that US troops are functionally rapists who can't control themselves, and must be segregated from women... and active and former military support Trump 56%. If anything, he should double down on it.

Believe me Ouze. This is a fight that I'm fighting.

 djones520 wrote:

Believe me Ouze. This is a fight that I'm fighting.

You certainly know/work with more military types than I do. Are the anti-Clinton people more upset over "Bengazi!" or the email scandal?

Edit: Honest question, not trying to start gak. Not many veterans in my circle of friends/co-workers. The one that's outspoken will be voting Clinton as he despises Trump (He's republican).

 kronk wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Believe me Ouze. This is a fight that I'm fighting.

You certainly know/work with more military types than I do. Are the anti-Clinton people more upset over "Bengazi!" or the email scandal?

Edit: Honest question, not trying to start gak. Not many veterans in my circle of friends/co-workers. The one that's outspoken will be voting Clinton as he despises Trump (He's republican).

Most people I know are like me in our dislike of Clinton. Primary issue is the classified stuff. Secondary is Benghazi. I don't ride that train as much, but I can see why people are concerned. A SecState who didn't seem to care to much about her Embassies, why would she care, as CinC, about her troops who are in trouble? There is also just the inherent dislike of Democrats that is typical in the military. That doesn't do her any favors.

Most of my close circle of Vet friends are on board with Johnson. Most of my acquaintances are going for Trump. I don't know a single service member who supports Clinton.

In what I assume will shock no one at this point, Trump used money from his charities to settle legal debts incurred by his for-profit businesses, probably unlawfully.

 Ouze wrote:
In what I assume will shock no one at this point, Trump used money from his charities to settle legal debts incurred by his for-profit businesses, probably unlawfully.

Yeah, his business practices are going to land him in the slammer. The Fraud case over his "University" is still ongoing, right?

The one in NY? Yes.

He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.

At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.

He could always start insulting China more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs
China.

That might be my favorite thing to come out of the election.

 Spinner wrote:
That might be my favorite thing to come out of the election.

I mean on the one hand, this election has been a slow-motion trainwreck, if all the cars were made of swamp garbage, and on fire? But on the other hand man the memes have been amazing. I'm really conflicted as an American, who also loves memes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a lot of reasons people dont like Clinton. Many people dont like political dynasties of family members following each other into office. That also worked heavily against Jeb Bush. Clinton also came off very poorly in the 2008 primaries, essentially appearing as an entitled prima donna who was utterly flabbergasted by Obama's success and many (rightly or wrongly) view her campaign then as the origin (or one of the origins) of many of the more absurd things thrown at Obama throughout his presidency, such as Birtherism. Clinton also has historically rubbed shoulders with lots of people her demographic view as class enemies (including Trump) and hip deep in wall street corruption, and charged outrageous amounts of money for speaking at events, which makes it hard to come off as ine in touch with the common people. She has also shown a great deal of fundamental ignorance of certain fields (the internet, firearms, etc). Mostly she comes off as the stereotypical South Park "smug know it all liberal" who thinks they know whats best for everyone despite seemingly having little concept of what those lives actually entail.

This is from both ends of the spectrum. Some of it has merit, some does not, but it is strongly felt.

There's also her involvement in destabilising the Middle East and North Africa, to pick something more recent, and her generally being a status quo fanatic in an age where neoliberalism is increasingly creating nazi movements in the West. Clinton thinks that the best way to meet Trump's call of making America great again is to say that America already is great. Considering current and future economic and ecological concerns this does not resonate very well with people outside of the small, well-off group that constitutes the top parts of the Democratic Party.

 Ouze wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
That might be my favorite thing to come out of the election.

I mean on the one hand, this election has been a slow-motion trainwreck, if all the cars were made of swamp garbage, and on fire? But on the other hand man the memes have been amazing. I'm really conflicted as an American, who also loves memes.

I don't think we will ever see such meme worthy materials for a long, long time.

Isn't that right Hil?

 sebster wrote:
Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.

At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.

Well he's not threatening immediate use of nuclears yet at least...Though with him who knows. He might order one just out of spite of anger.