Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Still, I'd be more than happy to start upholding the law to such a strict standard, provided that it was done universally. I imagine it'd certainly pay off regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary's e-mails.

Well, they should extend that to the last two Secretary of State's as well, since the last three have all used private emails.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

Sure, you can argue that Hillary's use of private email came after changes to the Department guidelines, but that's not a criminal matter. Departmental guidelines are just guidelines that can be changed any time, there's no legal basis there.

The criminal matter being discussed is whether Clinton's emails breached classified information guidelines, in a legal sense. But so did Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. There's no evidence of any actual leak in any of these three cases.

In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.

So, there's that. They're going through the pile of email, and if they find any that was actually classified at the time of it's sending, they might have a smoking gun.

But the whole thing is ridiculously politicized. Was she keeping too many secrets, or not keeping enough secrets? It seems that either way, they'd spin it against her. And when literally anything you do can be spun negatively, nothing has meaning.

[smjjames]

Still, I'd be more than happy to start upholding the law to such a strict standard, provided that it was done universally. I imagine it'd certainly pay off regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary's e-mails.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

Well, they should extend that to the last two Secretary of State's as well, since the last three have all used private emails.

Sure, you can argue that Hillary's use of private email came after changes to the Department guidelines, but that's not a criminal matter. Departmental guidelines are just guidelines that can be changed any time, there's no legal basis there.

The criminal matter being discussed is whether Clinton's emails breached classified information guidelines, in a legal sense. But so did Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. There's no evidence of any actual leak in any of these three cases.

Not to mention that the whole thing has been politicized to hell and back, several times, so, even if she DID get charged and go to trial, they'd have a hell of a hard time finding jurors that would be neutral. Especially given that she's in the middle of a national election campaign.

Yes, I know 'a Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich', but unless it were exactly balanced, both parties would cry 'POLITICAL SHENEINIGHANS!' depending on the verdict, and an exactly balanced jury could end up in a hung jury.

[Strife26]

DARPA is hard at work on advanced lawyer delivery systems, able to be deployed from both stategic submarine platforms as well as Near Earth Orbit (NEO) satellites. There are additional platforms on the way that act as an additional force multiplier by transplanting an entire defamation-easy court system on the Australian model. This does, of course, maximize the effectiveness of all known lawyer systems.

Actually under current US law, judgements in places with less strict libel laws are held to US standards for being applied anyway.

In general, that's the case, (although it doesn't stop an occasionally profitable industry in Australia from abusing their non-protections of speech) hence the importance of lawyer insertions.

[Vector]

That does not seem like battery to me in the definition used by people who don't have extra time and funds lying around to sue people. I have worse experiences than that walking down the street.

[Reelya]

Well, that's the legal definition.

The practical definition involves injury because injury is evidence you can present in court, and people who are injured are more likely to press charges. "Likelilhood of pressing charges" has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not.

And in this case, there were cameras. If someone deliberately shoves you going down the street, they've committed the misdemeanor of "simple battery" but you have little proof of that, and they can easily say "no, I didn't" or "she/he started it!"

[smjjames]

Well, that's the legal definition.

The practical definition involves injury because injury is evidence you can present in court, and people who are injured are more likely to press charges. "Likelilhood of pressing charges" has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not.

And in this case, there were cameras. If someone deliberately shoves you going down the street, they've committed the misdemeanor of "simple battery" but you have little proof of that, and they can easily say "no, I didn't" or "she/he started it!"

Even if there ARE cameras, it doesn't guarantee that it's 100% clear what happened. Even in the security video (which has lots of dropped frames for some reason), it's not 100% clear.

[Shadowlord]

Did you notice that the video you watched was in super slow motion, Covenant? (and anyone else who was swayed by it)
That'd do wonders to make being shoved/pulled/tossed look like just walking backwards.

It also shows only a small amount of time and uses a favorable angle so you can't see why she's moving, or what stops her.

You can get a clearer picture from an overhead view. I did some searching on youtube (just for 'michelle fields') until I found one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0T4UtHu09s

It only has individual frames instead of continuous video, but it's still clear what happened there. She's walking with Trump, then Lewandowski comes up and grabs her, pulls her back towards him, and then shoves her into the bearded person to the left* (which halts her momentum at that point).

*from the camera's perspective. Another video said that was Terris, and I don't know if that's true or not (I google image searched his name and got different faces none of which looked like the one in the video, but that could have been the very noticeable beard in the video and not in the google image search results; tends to hide face shapes somewhat).

P.S. I don't think those are dropped frames. That's just security camera being security camera. If it recorded continuous video it'd have to overwrite its older videos far more often (or buy bigger hard drives etc etc w/e), and what do you really get out of that?

Spoiler: RE:Maniac's image (click to show/hide)

[Geltor]

that was ruthless

[Shadowlord]

... She was already walking right next to Trump, holding her phone or phablet or whatever up, presumably recording audio in hopes he would answer her question.

[Baffler]

You could also make the case that they're taking a picture, from 00:12-00:14 anyway. She holds her phone (I think it's her phone) out like she's taking a picture using the front camera. They both even seem to be looking at it. Note also that her left hand is around behind (who I presume is) Lewandowski for a few frames before it's on his shoulder, then pulled back. Then he sort of guides her away so he can make way for the people (I think it's Trump himself) moving by behind them.

I don't even necessarily think that's what happened, it's just too potato quality to tell what's really happening.

[mainiac]

it's just too potato quality to tell what's really happening.

Real loser footage there.  Next time you want to have security camera footage you should get it from Trump resorts.  They have the classiest footage, amazing quality.

[smjjames]

heh maniac.

Anyway, as I said earlier, even from that video it's not entirely clear what happened there as there is so much going on.

[TheDarkStar]

So apparently Trump won't support another Republican candidate if they get the nomination and neither Kasich nor Cruz will give a clear answer to that question. GOP breakup when?

[Shadowlord]

Kasich being voted off the island when?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Kasich being voted off the island when?

(;if ohio=true
;print "[Namespace] will win the election because you can't win America without Ohio")