|
Xae posted:I'll tell that to my uncle who got dioxin poisoning from Agent Orange around the DMZ. He'll get a kick out of it. Seriously, what happened to your parents at this rally? You make it sound like it was pretty traumatic.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Pol 101 questions: 1) What has J. Sessions done which makes him as bad/worse than Trump? I pulled up and scanned his page on Wikipedia and he seems like the run of the mill republican that hates everything not white, male, and well off. Yeah its pretty awful but par for course? Is he Trump but smart, which therefore makes him dangerous? 2)What usually goes on in these closed meetings? I'm assuming stuff happened similar to this with Nixon? What tends to come out that isn't for public eyes and ears?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Seriously, what happened to your parents at this rally? You make it sound like it was pretty traumatic. Pretty much the exact same poo poo you're doing here. A ton of people coming up to them unprovoked and telling them that they were part of the problem. Or talking loudly about how boomers are the cause of all problems. My dad wanted to go to the speech to hear of Sanders would say anything about KOPA. Instead they ran into the IRL version of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Seriously, what happened to your parents at this rally? You make it sound like it was pretty traumatic. You're being kind of a poo poo, just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:While I don't have my westlaw open to pull the actual cites, it doesn't sound right because it's not right. IIRC, "corruptly" in the statute basically means "with improper intent," which is a scienter requirement, but is far far below "knowledge that you're breaking the law." I'd argue, fully in good faith, that DJT asking everyone else to leave the room before asking Comey is itself per se evidence of him knowing he was about to ask something that he really shouldn't be asking, i.e. "with improper intent." In human language, rather than lawyer language, basically it means that you have a feeling that you are doing something a bit wrong/shady/not cool. evilweasel posted:No. You have to have an intent to do the bad thing the law prohibits. You do not need to have the specific knowledge that bad thing is against the law. To expand a little bit. The disjunctive structure creates three paths to the crime, only one of which requires a specific mental state other than willingly doing the act: 1. You can "corruptly" influence, obstruct, or impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. 2. You can use threats or force to influence, obstruct, or impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law... or 3. You can use a threatening letter or communication to influence, obstruct, or impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.... The conduct that would fall under #1 is much broader because people can be influenced by all sorts of things. An exceptionally thoughtful Christmas card to the Comey family might conceivably sway him to let the Flynn investigation go, but to convict, you'd need to prove that the card was sent "corruptly" rather than "festively." When you look at more specific conduct under #2 or #3 though that intent element goes away. Its sufficiently conceivable that threats, force, threatening letters or threatening communications may influence an official that you don't need to look at the intent of the person making them. Chef Boyardeez Nuts fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
buglord posted:Pol 101 questions: He has rolled back all the recent protections for minor drug offenses and started encouraging hard sentences for minor weed possession starting Drug war 2.0, also pretty much halted every single investigation into police shootings and stopping all the programs put forth to train police to not kill black people so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
buglord posted:Pol 101 questions: 1.) Wants to end all Obama era criminal justice reforms and wanted to stop the DOJ review of individual police departments while bringing back more of the "war on drugs" including mandatory minimum sentencing. 2.) They talk about the classified aspects of the case, answering all the questions that Comey "Could not answer in a public forum"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Would like to point out that Jeff Sessions is not, as far as I can tell, smart
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
buglord posted:Pol 101 questions: He's basically a 2/3 scale version of a caricature of a antebellum plantation owner who votes for the worst possible version of everything that doesn't benefit white men and the south and normally he's so dumb and racist nobody is stupid enough to give him real power, and then Trump gave him one of the most powerful positions in the country. While trump is too stupid to make things happen AG has the ability to make life hell for minorities by fiat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Xae posted:I'll tell that to my uncle who got dioxin poisoning from Agent Orange around the DMZ. He'll get a kick out of it. While you're at it tell him he deserved it for being a babykiller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:Would like to point out that
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:Would like to point out that Jeff Sessions is not, as far as I can tell, smart Agreed. He's dumb as hell but he's in a position to do damage and *still* not as dumb as trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
I know people were saying this tweet got deleted but it loads for me. Wouldn't be a cache issue, as the first time I loaded it was like, two minutes ago. Maybe twitter is being weird at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
La Brea Carpet posted:2.) They talk about the classified aspects of the case, answering all the questions that Comey "Could not answer in a public forum" Right but why couldn't he answer those things in a public forum? Like are they naming people who may or may not be at fault for things, or is it strictly national security things? The whole testimony was entertaining to watch, but they were seriously piquing my curiosity every time they trailed off an answer with "we'll talk about it in private". Jaxyon posted:He's basically a 2/3 scale version of a caricature of a antebellum plantation owner who votes for the worst possible version of everything that doesn't benefit white men and the south and normally he's so dumb and racist nobody is stupid enough to give him real power, and then Trump gave him one of the most powerful positions in the country. and yikes. that's mega not cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Well, that's because she told everyone "hey, this is my email," let the state dep't know about it, and, if reports are true, looked into how to make sure she was complying with federal records laws since the recipients of her emails used state.gov addresses so those emails would be archived. theflyingorc posted:It was also really unlikely that there WAS intent. Clinton wasn't trying to leak things to foreign agents. Right, I agree. I was supplying context for a situation that might have been confirmation biased out of existence but has a similar idea behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
buglord posted:Right but why couldn't he answer those things in a public forum? Like are they naming people who may or may not be at fault for things, or is it strictly national security things? The whole testimony was entertaining to watch, but they were seriously piquing my curiosity every time they trailed off an answer with "we'll talk about it in private". We don't know but there's some reason it's classified, which could range from "Trump declared it classified" to "that is the central focus on an ongoing criminal investigation" to "that is the secret that proves Trump used Russian hacking to overturn the legitimate President, Hillary Clinton"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We don't know but there's some reason it's classified, which could range from "Trump declared it classified" to "that is the central focus on an ongoing criminal investigation" to "that is the secret that proves Trump used Russian hacking to overturn the legitimate President, Hillary Clinton" Or it all could be nothing, but even that something didn't happen is classified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Tzen posted:edit quote, drat it feels good to see a getin again
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
buglord posted:Right but why couldn't he answer those things in a public forum? Like are they naming people who may or may not be at fault for things, or is it strictly national security things? The whole testimony was entertaining to watch, but they were seriously piquing my curiosity every time they trailed off an answer with "we'll talk about it in private". The two big reasons I can think of are 1. The answer was classified or sourced from classified material. "Senator, the agent we have in place in the Kremlin told us Sessions was on the take." 2. The answer would compromise an ongoing investigation. "Senator, if I told you how turbo-hosed Michael Flynn is right now, he'd burn every document he owns and flee the country."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We don't know but there's some reason it's classified, which could range from "Trump declared it classified" to "that is the central focus on an ongoing criminal investigation" to "that is the secret that proves Trump used Russian hacking to overturn the legitimate President, Hillary Clinton" Oh alright, thanks. Last question on the topic: is Trump able to listen in on these closed sessions? Maybe not this one specifically, but in cases where the president has a clear conflict of interest coming from potential outcomes? Do they have a strict list of who is/isn't invited? Like if Trump isn't allowed in, whats stopping John McCain from leaking it at dinner after? Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:The two big reasons I can think of are buglord fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
buglord posted:Oh alright, thanks. Last question on the topic: is Trump able to listen in on these closed sessions? Maybe not this one specifically, but in cases where the president has a clear conflict of interest coming from potential outcomes? Do they have a strict list of who is/isn't invited? Like if Trump isn't allowed in, whats stopping John McCain from leaking it at dinner after? I'm sure someone phones the White House and tells them everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Xae posted:I'm sure someone phones the White House and tells them everything. he had rubio and cotton to dinner the other day
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Boon posted:Bear in mind that the reason the FBI did not pursue charges against Clinton is because it was unlikely they could prove intent. This feels pretty apples-to-oranges, given that they've violated very different statutes. Do the statutes that Clinton potentially violated require intent (in text or precedent)? What is the point you're making here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Xae posted:I'm sure someone phones the White House and tells them everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
buglord posted:Right but why couldn't he answer those things in a public forum? Like are they naming people who may or may not be at fault for things, or is it strictly national security things? The whole testimony was entertaining to watch, but they were seriously piquing my curiosity every time they trailed off an answer with "we'll talk about it in private". I would think that discussion of such would potentially tip off suspects or expose sources either of which could have negative impact on the ability to make the case. Things that may not seem consequential at first brush but when cloud sourced to the entirety of the planet could easily compromise the integrity of the investigation. Say if he says something like "we were aware of Sessions meeting with Russian agent X on blah blah date it" and only a limited number of people were in a position to be aware of said meeting or it was only communicated in via a certain communications channel (such as a back channel to the Kremlin) would let the target know that that path of information has been compromised and no new intel will ever come from it again. If you are actively investigating someone ideally you want them thinking that they are in the clear, that way they get reckless and make mistakes. Of course sometimes you want to do the opposite and put pressure on a weaker link (Looking at you Sessions) in the hopes that they'll panic and either do something stupid or sing like a Canary to save their bacon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Stickman posted:This feels pretty apples-to-oranges, given that they've violated very different statutes. Do the statutes that Clinton potentially violated require intent (in text or precedent)? What is the point you're making here? Yes, Clinton was under investigation for possibly intentionally mishandling classified information
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Classified information? Likely damaging to the administration? Being fed in some fashion to a toddler with a Twitter account? Jesus, this could be great. Or horrible. Or both. He's the loving president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
buglord posted:Oh alright, thanks. Last question on the topic: is Trump able to listen in on these closed sessions? Maybe not this one specifically, but in cases where the president has a clear conflict of interest coming from potential outcomes? Do they have a strict list of who is/isn't invited? Like if Trump isn't allowed in, whats stopping John McCain from leaking it at dinner after? Closed sessions are considered confidential, but the penalty for violating that (for a Senator) is expulsion or contempt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
buglord posted:Oh crap. Are actual, in-person spies still at thing, or are most things done via hacking? Are there any cool books/documentaries on American spies during the cold war, or some other recent period? In person spies will always be a thing. There are some things you just need a person on the ground for, they just aren't y'know, Tom Clancy characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
buglord posted:whats stopping John McCain from leaking it at dinner after? After today's performance, I'm not sure if McCain actually understands what's going on enough to properly leak anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Remember back when the founders were convinced that the legislature and executive would serve as checks on each other? lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:"What Comey described wasn’t obstruction of justice. Here’s why." Dang, I was really expecting that to be a Alexandra Petri satire story. ... satire is dead
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Stickman posted:This feels pretty apples-to-oranges, given that they've violated very different statutes. Do the statutes that Clinton potentially violated require intent (in text or precedent)? What is the point you're making here? The text of Clinton's relevant statutes say "grossly negligent", but the Supreme Court said in the 30s "they can't have possibly meant that, it has to require intent, also if it doesn't require intent then we're pretty sure it's unconstitutional". So yes, according to precedent it very much required intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:After today's performance, I'm not sure if McCain actually understands what's going on enough to properly leak anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Stickman posted:This feels pretty apples-to-oranges, given that they've violated very different statutes. Do the statutes that Clinton potentially violated require intent (in text or precedent)? What is the point you're making here? Both technically no, and actually yes. The Espionage Act, which was the statute most-often cited in terms of what actual laws Clinton violated, is, IIRC, silent on its face as to required intent. It's a completely accepted canon of statutory interpretation that if a criminal statute is silent as to intent on it's face, three mental states suffice: purposefully doing something (obvious), knowingly doing something (i.e. not positively wanting a result to come about, but aware that your actions will bring it about (e.g. Timothy McVeigh didn't actually know who his bombs would kill, so he didn't purposefully murder a particular person, but he knew that exploding a bomb would kill people), or recklessly doing something. Recklessness is rather complicated, but effectively boils down to being so absolutely careless as to be deserving of punishment anyway (a typical example is drunk driving, or firing a gun up into the air, etc - you don't know you're hurting something, but your behavior is so thoughtless it's still culpable). So that's where we start. Thing is, there have not been prosecutions under the espionage act that did not have purposeful or knowing action at the base of them. For [long and quite pedantic reasons that flyingorc summarized well], it's constitutionally problematic to prosecute someone under a theory of a criminal statute that's never used in that way - so Espionage Act prosecutions, as a practical matter, require proof of intent to improperly handle classified information (e.g. David Petraeus bragging about it to his lover) or knowledge that you're doing it. There happened to be zero evidence that Clinton intended to process classified information through her home server (in fact, she would specifically ask for documents, etc. to be scrubbed of classified information before they be sent to it), or knew that specific pieces of classified information was there. So as to your specific question on the point, the statute we're discussing as to Trump actually has a higher scienter requirement (see above discussions of "corruptly"), but we have at least some evidence of his intent to act improperly, whereas we had no such evidence as to Clinton's mental state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
bad things happening to rupert murdoch, always good to see: https://twitter.com/johnprescott/status/872957575788101632
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
I wonder what happens if this Russian influence goes so deep that they managed to rig vote counts in key states. Whether that's adjusting the count or influencing politicians and voting authorites to reduce access to voting. Like, it's unprecedented and I'm being overimaginative, but impeachment just means the Republicans still have all the power unless it involves so many Republicans that the only people left in line for succession are Democrats. They still stole the election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:bad things happening to rupert murdoch, always good to see: Hopefully he has a stroke and drops dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Tangentially relevant, but just so you guys know: from the early results, it looks like young voters in the UK have actually come through, the most optimistic polls were roughly right, and Theresa May is loving gone. We won't know for hours yet whether Tories or Labour are going to win the election, but it looks like it'll go from a Tory majority to no-one having a majority. Which means the Tories are going to be pissed, since May called the election three years early in response to a massive Tory lead and then proceeded to run a truly awful campaign. And over here, when an entire party is pissed at their leader, that's when the knives come out. Her replacement will probably be a little less... compliant... when it comes to Trump. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Tangentially relevant, but just so you guys know: from the early results, it looks like young voters in the UK have actually come through, the most optimistic polls were roughly right, and Theresa May is loving gone. We won't know for hours yet whether Tories or Labour are going to win the election, but it looks like it'll go from a Tory majority to no-one having a majority. Which means the Tories are going to be pissed, since May called the election three years early in response to a massive Tory lead and then proceeded to run a truly awful campaign. And over here, when an entire party is pissed at their leader, that's when the knives come out. Her replacement will probably be a little less... compliant... when it comes to Trump. the tory leader is going to be boris johnson who is going to schmooze up to trump even more
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:11
|
|