I see that you do not understand how a trial works. the jury is asked to deduce the accused intent based on the actions he took. There are no mind readers involved.
Always glad to educate you all on how the system works.
It's obvious that, despite your lofty claims of "jurisprudence knowledge", you don't understand how a trial, (or humor), works.
Let's try to help you;
Jurors are asked to make a determination based on evidence and testimony presented by both the prosecution and defense.
A court could, (improperly IMO), allow a "mind reader" to proffer "expert" testimony, even over a filed motion in limine and / or a timely and properly made ore tenus objection by opposing counsel, and therein lies theJOKE that is the basis of the CARTOON.
Additionally, the only "education" that you're offering anyone here is on how banal and tiresome a Leftoid is.
Leftists gotta Leftist ....even when they have to have humor explained to them....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-30-2023).]
Originally posted by randye: There is a very long and sordid history of this sort of criminal behavior on the Left.
Thank goodness Trump came along to restore some balance..! If it weren't for Trump, the Left might have left the Right far behind in the race to claim the "Most Irresponsible" prize in the great classified documents mishandling contest.
The late Sandy Berger is clearly an enigma, which almost seems like an oxymoron—until you think about it twice. On the one hand, there's this:
quote
In 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing some papers in his pants leg. He cut up some of the documents with scissors, for reasons that remain unclear. He was sentenced to probation and a $50,000 fine. He expressed regret for his actions. . . .
In court, Berger admitted to taking and destroying three copies of a classified report about the government’s response to the plot in 2000 by Islamic extremists to attack in Los Angeles and other locations. But a report by House Republicans claimed he may have secretly removed many more documents from the Archives. . . .
And yet, in an article that appeared in no less a publication that the famous Daily Beast—and duplicated on the equally famous Brookings Institution's website—Bruce Riedel lauded the late Sandy Berger's role in putting the brakes on what could have escalated into a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. If that was Sandy Berger's finest hour, and so it would seem in the eyes of Bruce Riedel, it happened in 1999 and several years before Berger's "documents debacle."
Instead of my longstanding custom of posting the links for these articles, I feel like letting that ride. I think if anyone is motivated enough to want to find these articles online, they could likely do so by feeding some of what's within this Pennock's post into any of the online search engines... Google, DuckDuckGo or whatever.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-29-2023).]
"FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”"
"FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”"
You know Todd, after looking at some of the comments made in this thread,, it's glaringly obvious that our "resident Leftoids" are so incredibly eager to prove the work of Dunning - Kruger that they find that they're incapable of restraining themselves from arguing about things they have no real knowledge or experience with.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-30-2023).]
You know Todd, after looking at some of the comments made in this thread,, it's glaringly obvious that our "resident Leftoids" are so incredibly eager to prove the work of Dunning - Kruger that they find themselves incapable of restraining themselves from arguing about things they have no real knowledge or experience with.
It is every bit Haidt's Law of Moral Reasoning... judgement is based on emotion, and then the reasoning comes to explain the emotional judgement.
... and to add to this, none of these individuals would ever pass a psychological exam, let alone a lifestyle polygraph. Though I would enjoy being in the other room watching the polygraph session as they try to explain away whatever deviant behavior they did in their past.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-29-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... and to add to this, none of these individuals would ever pass a psychological exam, let alone a lifestyle polygraph. Though I would enjoy being in the other room watching the polygraph session as they try to explain away whatever deviant behavior they did in their past.
HEH, I'd love to watch something like that as well.
I will forever remember my very first "interview / interrogation" for my military clearance and the first words spoken to me. The DIA investigator sat me down in a tiny, bare, room with just a small table and two chairs in it, like something out of a cheesy movie. He said: "I am NOT your father or your mother or your priest. If I find anything during my investigation of you that I can prosecute you for, I WILL If you feel like you need to see a JAG officer we can stop this right here. If you fully understand what I have just told you and you still wish to proceed, we will."
Many years later, after my military service, while working on civilian side classified programs, I confess that got a wee bit tired of the decades long, constant, random, polygraphs and the DCSA having unfettered access to all of my bank and other financial data, (credit cards), as well as my cell phone records. Since we have always shared joint bank accounts and I've always been the primary cell service account holder, my wife has had a "word" (or two), to share with me about this through the years.
The required "interviews" and polygraph sessions after every trip outside of the U.S. were also "fun".
OH...and then there's the constant training on handling classified materials and being reminded each and every time about the law and, most importantly, the penalties for breaking those laws. ("Sign here to affirm that you understand these procedures and penalties".).
But of course we will always have a coffle of Leftoids here to argue with us, (and "educate" us), about something we are both exceptionally well trained and experienced with....
.....and they are not
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-30-2023).]
It's fortunate indeed that in the United States, a military service record or a military connection does not confer any overt political advantages. Active Duty Military and Armed Services Veterans and military contractors are accorded exactly one vote, just like everyone else. And they are not put above anyone else in terms of eligibility for public office—at least not by statute.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-30-2023).]
HEH, I'd love to watch something like that as well.
But of course we will always have a coffle of Leftoids here to argue with us, (and "educate" us), about something we are both exceptionally well trained and experienced with....
Yeah, I have to admit... it was really wearing on me as well. Every day it was something new... the intrusion in my life was insane. And then having to get a mortgage... the organization I worked for, they wouldn't do verification of employment because it was a spy agency. So I had to have a calm / measured discussion with the mortgage lender that, yes, you can pull my credit, and you can look at my non-descript LES statements, but you cannot get a verification of employment. If they didn't laugh at me, and took me serious, I could then work with them and had to have them put a generic name for my employer. This sucked, considering I had to move every 3-4 years. But I do miss it... I miss the mission and everyone being on the same page.
One thing I always noticed though, about political ideologues...
Open-lefties would come into the agency, and then take two directions within the first 6 months of being there... 1 - They would be shocked and dismayed, and their political views would often change pretty quickly... seeing the world-truth, and not the fake narrative provided by the news or politicians (from both sides). 2 - They reveled in it, and believed the agency could become an action arm for change. They sought positions where they could (within the law) help enact social change to any degree that they could.
This is why it gets so frustrating... conversations like this. Randos on the internet have ALREADY made up their mind, and search for any articles to back up or support their beliefs. But people like us who actually had a clearance, and did clearance work... know full-well the obligation, duty, and responsibility that we had to go through to get it. And anyone with a clearance understands entirely that what Hillary did was intentional and knowing subversion of the rules / processes ... and was absolutely let off the hook because of the concern for what it would mean for her campaign. All they did was admonish her publicly. If any one of us had done even anything anywhere remotely close to what she did... we'd be in jail faster than you can say, "I cannot recall."
"FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”"
Why should I stop educating you on the truth? Here is the exact same information I posted except this time from the link you provided
Update, July 7: Comey told Congress that three emails sent and received by Clinton had “portion markings” — a letter “C” in the body of the emails — indicating the presence of classified information.
You should actually try reading the articles you post to keep from looking stupid.
Originally posted by randye: You know Todd, after looking at some of the comments made in this thread,, it's glaringly obvious that our "resident Leftoids" are so incredibly eager to prove the work of Dunning - Kruger that they find that they're incapable of restraining themselves from arguing about things they have no real knowledge or experience with.
I just posted links proving that I know more about Hillary's email issue than either of you.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Why should I stop educating you on the truth? Here is the exact same information I posted except this time from the link you provided
Update, July 7: Comey told Congress that three emails sent and received by Clinton had “portion markings” — a letter “C” in the body of the emails — indicating the presence of classified information.
You should actually try reading the articles you post to keep from looking stupid.
Why should I stop educating you on the truth? Here is the exact same information I posted except this time from the link you provided
Update, July 7: Comey told Congress that three emails sent and received by Clinton had “portion markings” — a letter “C” in the body of the emails — indicating the presence of classified information.
You should actually try reading the articles you post to keep from looking stupid.
Oh Fred... I've said all I can... you've already made your mind up. And that's totally OK.
It is not "my mind". No opinion involved. That quote is from Comey, not me. So, since you know everything, just show me the proof that he is wrong.
Or run away and hide, whatever.
The problem here is that you are cherry-picking statements... because you do not UNDERSTAND what classified information is... or how it got on her server. I've explained it a few times, so I'd recommend you re-read the thread if it's important to you. If I "run away and hide," as you say... it's because I recognize your cognitive thought looks like this:
PROBLEM --> EMOTION --> JUDGEMENT --> REASON
... and I have to balance my time between the absurd, and everything else going on during my day.
Clinton Trump classified OR documents OR server OR Mar-a-Lago OR records OR State OR Department OR emails OR SCIF "comparison"
This is the text string that I entered into the Google online search input field.
It's a suggestion for anyone who might be looking at this Pennock's forum conversation and kind of scratching their head (so to speak) and trying to understand exactly what it is that is being discussed.
I just posted links proving that I know more about Hillary's email issue than either of you.
No you don't.
You only posted internet links to other people's opinions and stories and now your ego has taken over and you're pretending....again.
I can't imagine how sad and desperate that must be when your entire "knowledge" is just peeking through the "Google keyhole" at other people's lives and work and then pretending that you're "smart".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-30-2023).]
You only posted internet links to other people's opinions and stories and now your ego has taken over and you're pretending....again.
I can't imagine how sad and desperate that must be when your entire "knowledge" is just peeking through the "Google keyhole" at other people's lives and work and then pretending that you're "smart".
looks like your guys
as you said they were ''JUST TOURISTS'' SO WOULD NOT GO TO PRISON where does that place you on the magic curve
you claim the rich are over taxed then we see the RUMP'S RETURNS where does that place you on the magic curve ABOVE
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The problem here is that you are cherry-picking statements... because you do not UNDERSTAND what classified information is..
I completely understand what classified information is.
I also understand the difference between classified information that is labeled as such and that which is not.
You only posted internet links to other people's opinions and stories and now your ego has taken over and you're pretending....again.
What you call "other people's opinions and stories" I call the results of the official investigation.
Basically I am posting the opinion of the person who actually investigated the issue and knows all the facts. You can squeal about the semantics of calling that an "opinion" all you want, but his opinion certainly carries more weight than anyone here. You guys did not even understand the basic facts about what material was labeled as classified and what was not.
I can't imagine how sad and desperate that must be when your entire "knowledge" is just peeking through the "Google keyhole" at other people's lives and work and then pretending that you're "smart".
Nothing sad and desperate about doing research and learning facts.
I know more about the actual facts of the issue than you do. You had nothing to do with the investigation of Hilary Clinton's emails.
I believe she is one of Epstein's model / concubine girls on the island of Little S. James. No secret that many high ranking dempartie muppets made the Lolita Express flights to ' Flop their Junk on the Beach ' Apparently obvious is the presence of Biden_Joe on secret trips to the orgy, though he sniffs them younger, prepubescent, ' I like teenies and ice cream.. uh.. ice cream. I'm not joking ! ' Vice Presidential Immunity '. Offshore of the Continental US, where American Law is not relevant. ' Anything you want, Sir ' Honeypot Sting.
Suborned by foreign intelligence, willfully submitting to external interests. Kowtowing, kneeling before Emperor Xi. ' I will sell you the Constitution for a few nights with teenie cootchie. ' An old pederast's wish list.
Originally posted by fredtoast: I completely understand what classified information is.
I also understand the difference between classified information that is labeled as such and that which is not.
But you don't.
I have to respond to this again... because it's that ridiculous. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you Fred... but I realize there's some ego and pride here, and that you don't like to lose an argument. But you've got to do better here.
It's not a discussion when you're defiantly arguing nonsense on something you essentially have never seen and know absolutely nothing about. And so you do not deflect and try to misrepresent this conversation... we're talking about this sentence right here:
"I also understand the difference between classified information that is labeled as such and that which is not."
Everyone is laughing at you because you're basically insinuating that disclosure of classified information is not a crime, criminal, or malicious, when it's not portion-marked. Which is completely absurd. Classified information is classified... and it doesn't matter if you write it on a Post-It-Note, or it's on a classified network with proper headings and portion markings.
The reason the classified information on Hillary's servers and phones are not all portion marked, is because she asked Huma Abedeen to "transcribe" information from a classified network onto an unclassified medium (text, e-mail, etc.). This is all obvious to the rest of us, so maybe we're taking for granted that you didn't understand this. But it's for this reason why the intelligence agencies (after reviewing her e-mails) found that more than 2,000 of her e-mails were classified, most of them as Top Secret and some with additional caveats, which she was probably not even read into.
You do not deal in facts, Fred... you seem to be dealing in narrative.
Originally posted by cliffw: Are you really a lawyer ? Serious question.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: Serious answer, "yes". There are very few strict liability criminal laws. An overwhelming majority require mens rea.
I have tried multiple murder cases, and every single one of them was about the level of intent. I never tried to argue in any of them that my client did not kill someone. The entire defense was based on "intent".
What is mens rea ?
Drunks who kill someone did not have the intention of doing so. It was negligence.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Many would argue that one consequence for Hillary Clinton was losing a presidential election which many pollsters predicted her winning right up until Election Day, and an election in which she received more popular votes for president than her opponent, and an election which went against her by a relatively few number of popular votes in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
Are you really an American citizen ? Do you even think about what you post ?
On your left hand, you say Clinton should have won the Presidential election due to that she won the popular vote vote count. On your left foot, the one in your mouth, you are complaining she didn't win the popular vote in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
Originally posted by fredtoast: Actually, by disagreeing with the results of the official investigation you are proving that you are ruled by emotion instead of reason.
So please tell us exactly what personal benefits Hilary got from handling this information they way she did. The fact that she did NOT benefit from it is one of the main reasons they determined there was no criminal intent.
Are you claiming to be omniscient? If so how would you prove it in a court of law?
What, ?
You are trying to tell us that justice is not blind. If you are really a lawyer, you would know that is not true !
Hillery did not get any benefits ? Hiding potential evidence of a criminal crime is a benefit.
If you are really a lawyer, you would know that destroying evidence is a crime.
Why do you think she needed to delete 33,000 emails on a secret illegal private server hidden in a basement ?
Are you really an American citizen? Do you even think about what you post? On your left hand, you say Clinton should have won the Presidential election due to that she won the popular vote vote count.
On your left foot, the one in your mouth, you are complaining she didn't win the popular vote in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
No. You are reading me wrong.
I did not say that Clinton should have been awarded the Presidency because she won the popular vote count.
I do say that I consider the Electoral College a useless and harmful anachronism and an element of presidential elections that should be abolished for the betterment of the nation.
When I posted my mind on this quite some years ago, I got support for it from one of the forum's most venerable members, who is among your fellow Texans.
Do you really believe in your lying eyes, or your media preferred education ? That is what your misinformed eyes let you see.
Is an actual video evidence enough ?
Comey said no prosecutor would take the case. He was trying to claim that he knew no prosecutor would take the case. Comey's job was to present evidence to a prosecutor. Not to decide how they think !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-31-2023).]
I do say that I consider the Electoral College a useless and harmful anachronism and an element of presidential elections that should be abolished for the betterment of the nation.
I want to address this, because I want to understand your argument. I think I understand it... and I hope you don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm going to make some assumptions, and then just correct me if I'm wrong.
Some people do not like the Electoral College because their candidate has lost as a result from it. They think the "majority" vote should win. They say this (I think) because they view the office of the presidency as having more of an impact on their lives than their local state does.
THIS is the problem, in my opinion.
The country has changed significantly over the years, and people kind of lose track of the purpose of the state. The reason why the electoral college exists constitutionally is to ensure that every state has an equal vote. So... more specifically, that NY and CA do not have MORE right / authority than all the other states in the middle of the country.
We are a Republic... and to be completely honest, the Federal government has grown so incredibly large, that it significantly outweighs the intended role it once had. Under the premise of the Constitution, the states played a much more important role in the day to day lives of every individual, while the Federal government's role was more or less dealing with foreign governments and simply keeping the country together... not to micro-manage the states.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The reason why the electoral college exists constitutionally is to ensure that every state has an equal vote.
I do not know why other people can not understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Every State had a voice in joining to becoming the United States.
I want to mention the First Amendment to the Constitution. In which includes the right to peaceable assembly.
I am curious. What does that mean to you / the forum at large ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-31-2023).]
One particular family, the Smiths, are big fans of Barney, the purple dinosaur. They also have a VERY loud TV and every night at 3 AM, they pop in their VHS tape of the complete works of Barney and crank it up to 11.
The Elm Street neighborhood coalition calls a meeting to vote on proposed noise limit rules.
Everyone gets a vote. Each family has two children, except for the Smiths, who have 27 rugrats. You will listen to Barney and you will like it.
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Is it time to replace Electoral College with popular vote?" rinselberg for Pennock's Fiero Forum "Totally O/T"; November 6, 2016. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/118294.html
"rinselberg cites rinselberg."
Good read, :thumsup: .
I am wanting to address a lot of posts.
quote
Originally posted by RayOtton: Do away with the Federal government, except for defense and military treaties. Everyone throws the same % of $ into the pot for mutual protection.
Then let the states figure the rest out for themselves. Education, economy, infrastructure, healthcare, the works.
The NATO system is a good idea. If they don't throw in their % of money to run our Federal Government, their vote will not count.
AGAIN, for the second time today, I ask what do y'all think the 1st Amendment's right to freedom to assemble mean.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-31-2023).]
?
