(06-28-2023 02:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah, but what about John Kerry getting that Bronze Star that he didn't deserve????

Actually, looking closer, the campaign finance issue is even worse than I noted above.

The campaign doesnt send 10%. here is the real kicker -- the ad in the visible portion says nothing *but* campaign and contribute to the campaign.

The 4 or 5 point font thing says (paraphrase) --- 'not really. By clicking you agree that 10% of the total donated will not be donated to the campaign, but to the PAC.' Unstated, the main purpose of which seems to be paying Trump's personal legal bills.

Thought I was donating to a campaign -- in reality you are as an added unknown bonus donating to the defamation suit against Cohen, the defense of the 2 remaining Jean Carroll lawsuits, the defense of the NY criminal indictments, the defense Miami indictment issue, and to paying 40 or 50 legal bills of the various witnesses. Lolz. And a co-defendant in the Miami case. Double lolz.

Yeah, that is a grift. Pretty much false pretenses all the way. The 'changeup' is hidden in literal magnifying glass size font.

And Trump is the only one doing this, ever?

At least his stuff in the fine print.

Everybody who thinks Democratic campaign finance is pure, come over here and look at this bridge I have for sale.


Bad enough you guys make up crap, but then you compound it by claiming purity of …. Everything.


Who wants to claim Soros over his lifetime has paid every bill in full? How about Bezos, Musk, Buffet, eT al. Nobody ever sued them?

To save you, and us, some time, I recommend you just write "Whatabout" in your replies going forward. It's far more concise.

What about those idiots who think the Russia investigation was legit and not crap ginned up by the Blue Party?

What about those idiots who think Joe Biden/Kamala Harris is a great choice for President?

What about those idiots who make fun instead of engaging is serious discussion?

Sorry if a bit of satire sets you off, dude.

My point was that when Tanq provided requested examples of Trump grift that they would likely fall on deaf ears and that whatabouts would be the response.

And then his examples fell on deaf ears and whatabouts were the response.

Imagine that.

Tanq...
I had another long, detailed... line by line refutation written out to you and decided to nix it. This may not be short, but it will absolutely be shorter.

Regardless of what you think you know about my position and beliefs, you frequently misrepresent them... and not in trivial ways.... but in ways that imply that I believe things that I have specifically said that I don't. That's infuriating.

First, My comment about 'excusing' someone who had been hounded for 4 years was in response to Lad's 'excusing' someone else for something I found to be similar... so I asked him if he would grant the same 'excuse' over frustration to one person that he is granting to another. That really has nothing to do with Trump other than to use his circumstances to see if someone is truly a believer in what he is saying, or if it is merely situational. I took no position on Trump... yet for some reason, you hear me somehow excusing Trump. If you don't understand the difference in those perspectives that I'm describing, then I'll just have to live with that, because I'm done debating it with you... especially in that you were not a party to that specific question. I was questioning how committed to these 'excuses' Lad was... I was not defending Trump.

Second, I have advanced degrees from Universities you've probably heard of... and a modestly decorated career in business... To the extent that I watch news type TV, I tend to watch things like CSPAN or The Weather Channel more than MSNBC or CNN or FOX... and in those travels I've heard numerous back and forth between a number of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle with members of various organizations there as 'witnesses'. Among them have been people challenging some FBI actions. The two that stand out most to me were 2-3 incidents of the FBI monitoring cars at School Board meetings... and 2-3 incidents of people's homes being raided. I can only name a few of the people involved... and I don't recall at all the names of the witnesses nor the 'people' being harassed... though they were mentioned... because I don't care that much about the details.... so the truth of the matter is, I really don't know HOW I might look up to see what family they were talking about some time last week where the guy from the right clearly engaged in some 'that was a yes or no question' theatrics, but also had some very troubling accusations and questions, and the witness had poor or no answers... and when the Democrat whose name also escapes me sort of 'came to the guys rescue', it was for what i consider to be a relatively meaningless and uncontroverted point that most of the people who work for the FBI are good, honest hard working patriotic Americans etc etc etc... but nobody in any way seemed to dispute the other guy's contention that they probably could have just come with a warrant and knocked on the guys door.... and didn't need to create the theatre of guns drawn, rushing down halls, screaming little children etc. There was video which I saw for myself... and pictures. There were explanations, but no real excuses in my mind....

And rather than accept that I'm a relatively intelligent, reasonably well informed and skeptical of politicians person who may have seen things that concern me, that may or may not concern you... you try and play 'gotcha' with the fact that I didn't take notes on these events.... with the kicker being... that you agree/admit that they happen... so why do I really need to??

Now let's finally talk about JETFL.

If I thought for a moment that 'what you suggest' would work, I would support you 100%.... but I don't... and you've made no effort to convince me of why what could have been done for varying parts of the last 40 years hasn't happened, suddenly would... Your explanations of how the threat of punishment is a deterrent (which I agree with) is not applicable to the current situation, because that threat does not exist currently... nor do I see any reason for the people in charge to solve this. I mean, I can see Congress cracking down on shady business people like Trump, at least until they stop making donations to their campaigns, but I don't see Congress cracking down on politicians who bilk the system, in perhaps thousands of ways.... and because of what I THINK you referred to as 'carve outs' like 793(f) or whatever it was... it seems to me that they have specifically created a system that Hillary's server issues and Biden's 'I don't know how my son makes money' are perfect examples of ways that people might do horrible things, but avoid serious consequences through plausible deniability.

It is just way too convenient in my mind to be coincidental.... but it doesn't have to be intentional for it to be wrong.

So my plan is bad and your plan has 40 years of evidence of what seems to be increasing futility....

so what else do you have....

If I've left anything significant out in terms of things you think I need to correct, explain or respond to... it was not intentional.

(06-28-2023 07:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, My comment about 'excusing' someone who had been hounded for 4 years was in response to Lad's 'excusing' someone else for something I found to be similar... so I asked him if he would grant the same 'excuse' over frustration to one person that he is granting to another.

Ham, respectfully I think you are mistaken.

Post 48, this thread.

Quote:

Quote:Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do??

The first quote is me, from post #43, in response to OO.

I was responding directly to your comment that posits: "So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do?? "

Quote:I was not defending Trump.

As I said earlier, I take your word for that.

My counterpoint of the history of Trump and litigation was here, in post 51. https://csnbbs.com/thread-972152-post-18...id18995757

Quote:No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

I fail to see where I am saying, stating, or even implying you are covering for Trump.

Quote:Second, I have advanced degrees from Universities you've probably heard of... and a modestly decorated career in business...

I dont doubt your CV. I never have. Many here can recite some of the same. And quite honestly, with those that dont have the illustrious degrees, nor the careers, I dont think I have ever made that a sticking point, nor a selling point. I tend to expect pretty much top notch from Rice people, regardless of pieces of paper, or how decorated their career is.

If I have impugned that in any way, please do tell. Or even impliedly impugned that aspect. If so, I will apologize forthwith.

Quote:and in those travels I've heard numerous back and forth between a number of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle with members of various organizations there as 'witnesses'. Among them have been people challenging some FBI actions. The two that stand out most to me were 2-3 incidents of the FBI monitoring cars at School Board meetings...

I dont find monitoring cars an issue dealing with excessive raid strength, or whatever the term is.

Quote:and 2-3 incidents of people's homes being raided. I can only name a few of the people involved... and I don't recall at all the names of the witnesses nor the 'people' being harassed... though they were mentioned... because I don't care that much about the details.... so the truth of the matter is, I really don't know HOW I might look up to see what family they were talking about some time last week where the guy from the right clearly engaged in some 'that was a yes or no question' theatrics, but also had some very troubling accusations and questions, and the witness had poor or no answers... and when the Democrat whose name also escapes me sort of 'came to the guys rescue', it was for what i consider to be a relatively meaningless and uncontroverted point that most of the people who work for the FBI are good, honest hard working patriotic Americans etc etc etc... but nobody in any way seemed to dispute the other guy's contention that they probably could have just come with a warrant and knocked on the guys door.... and didn't need to create the theatre of guns drawn, rushing down halls, screaming little children etc. There was video which I saw for myself... and pictures. There were explanations, but no real excuses in my mind....

No one is saying that "NO" excessive force raids/ searches/ seizures take place. I dont buy into the "ohsey nosey, nothing but Gestapo raids on people on right. Everyone run in fright if you are on the right. The KGB/ Stasi wannabes are out to get you righties."

When you make an overbroad statement, dont be surprised to be asked to back it up.

Finally, stories that 'hit Congress' and hearings are *not* the best reliance matter as proof of the normal steady state. First, congress critters work diligently to 'work up' the issue -- its better red meat. Second, when there is a case that is exceptionally egregious enough to hit Congress *and* pass the Congressman 'talk it up crap' test unscathed -- yes, those are exceptional, real problems.

And yes, I talk to Congress people as well. Several ask me for not insubstantial donations for some odd reason, considering I dont have a long history of such money gifts. Somehow I ended up on a list because I made the unfortunate mistake of attending a 'money rush' event or two almost a decade ago, at the invitation of some very well off clients.

And because of essentially moving for all intents and purposes from Austin to a very deep red portion, and because of some of the people I have made friends with in the center of the state, that issue has expanded. I think I am on the hook to host a fing event (not donate, but donate the venue) for one or two of the people. Hell, a congress dude or two might sit in the same chair in front of the firepit you did not so long ago if I cant bugger out of it.

Quote:And rather than accept that I'm a relatively intelligent, reasonably well informed and skeptical of politicians person who may have seen things that concern me, that may or may not concern you... you try and play 'gotcha' with the fact that I didn't take notes on these events.... with the kicker being... that you agree/admit that they happen... so why do I really need to??

Ham, I am not playing 'gotcha', nor have I explicitly nor impliedly 'discounted' your brains, intelligence, or background. I am saying -- when you make a bald, general statement -- be prepared to back it up. I dont expect any more, nor any less, from anyone.

If I were to say 'All present day republicans are conspiratorial looney tunes types', I would hope to god you would challenge that broad statement, and insist on some backing of it.

And when I say 'Yeah Trump is guilty', I am fully prepared to back my opinion comment with facts.

I do have one issue. If you mean to talk about what you *hope* the law should do, dont frame it using the word 'is'. I will take your word that when you describe, for example, the function of 'intent' using the word 'is' (iirc, (paraphrase) 'intent is used for punishment only'), I will accept your correction to what you intend. But please use the idea of 'should be' there. Not 'is'.

And no, when you type (paraphrase) 'intent is used for punishment only', there really is *no* context that changes the verb 'is' to 'should be' that I can see clearly.

Quote:Now let's finally talk about JETFL.

If I thought for a moment that 'what you suggest' would work, I would support you 100%.... but I don't... and you've made no effort to convince me of why what could have been done for varying parts of the last 40 years hasn't happened, suddenly would... Your explanations of how the threat of punishment is a deterrent (which I agree with) is not applicable to the current situation, because that threat does not exist currently...

Because in high profile cases, we dont necessarily JETFL. And many then try to use a 'political or social' defense of 'X wasnt charged' as some crutch case that their fave shouldnt be charged.

Again, when the popo tag people on a road for a day or two consistently -- people slow the hell down in the area.

And unlike you, I dont think strict liability is an answer for a something that could lead to a felony bearing hit. And unlike you, I think the moralistic underpinning of requiring some state of mind is actually fair, and equitable.

Quote:nor do I see any reason for the people in charge to solve this. I mean, I can see Congress cracking down on shady business people like Trump, at least until they stop making donations to their campaigns, but I don't see Congress cracking down on politicians who bilk the system, in perhaps thousands of ways....

The issue with the above is Congress doesnt enforce the laws.

Quote:and because of what I THINK you referred to as 'carve outs' like 793(f) or whatever it was... it seems to me that they have specifically created a system that Hillary's server issues and Biden's 'I don't know how my son makes money' are perfect examples of ways that people might do horrible things, but avoid serious consequences through plausible deniability.

In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.

OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

Yes, it sucks rocks that Hillary wasnt charged. I dont agree with that decision. But, I understand some of it, because it was a hard fing case to make in a courtroom. The DOJ saves its powder for the stuff they can rock and roll on.

Conversely, the evidence re: Trump is substantially better, far more clear, and much more of it. And, to boot, they have him locked in the crosshairs of a much better case of obstruction. Its ******* clear as day -- he rigged the boxes, and induced his attorneys to fail in their search to a lawful subpoena. This **** is literally in Nata's texts, and out of the mouths of the Trump attorneys.

This is how flipping stupid Trump did this.

So yeah, throw the fing book at him. Make him object #1 of 'enforce the fing law.' I have zero issue with that result. With or without my personal feeling on Trump. (but of course, it would be far more interesting if, say, Mel Gibson were charged.....)

Quote:If I've left anything significant out in terms of things you think I need to correct, explain or respond to... it was not intentional.

be good Ham.

(06-28-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.
OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

But you don't have to make that change. National security crimes are strict liability crimes. Or at least they are for ordinary people.

Plus, two primary indicia of intent are repetition and destruction of evidence. Both are present in Hillary's case.

(06-28-2023 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.
OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

But you don't have to make that change. National security crimes are strict liability crimes. Or at least they are for ordinary people.

And my queries into it with a current person who does thee says not, that the DOJ guidelines do *not* allow for that scenario.

You have to show *some* issue of bad mens rea for charging.

That doesnt preclude them using a threat -- that is 'hey, you better cooperate, this could get bad' - tyope stuff.

But to your last two sentences, after queries -- I disagree.

Quote:Plus, two primary indicia of intent are repetition and destruction of evidence. Both are present in Hillary's case.

Bad facts in hinder Hillary's case. Hillary neither bleach bombed, nor physically destroyed the disk -- nor did she remove the emails.

In that particular instance, a tech dude fessed up to the 2 former, and Clinton's then attorney and another tech noted that it was their call for the remaining actions.

The DOJ immunized the first tech when he refused to testify -- and when that adhered, he testified that he did it on his own.

Bad facts, and a solid wall of people saying that they did it on their own.

I dont necessarily believe them, but that solid wall simply became really bad facts on the 'Hillary destroyed / ordered the stuff destroyed' angle.

As for repetition --- repetition of of an action that you dont think is illegal is not really indicia of anything. For 793 (f), repetition doesnt mean squat, in fact. At a first pass, for that to really work with Hillary, you have to lay the predicate that Hillary had some willful knowledge of the the issue. Again, in her case -- problematic as hell.

Not trying to say she wasnt culpable, but the issues getting to that are far harder to make than the current ongoing issue on 'docs'.

(06-29-2023 12:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.
OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

But you don't have to make that change. National security crimes are strict liability crimes. Or at least they are for ordinary people.

And my queries into it with a current person who does thee says not, that the DOJ guidelines do *not* allow for that scenario.
You have to show *some* issue of bad mens rea for charging.
That doesn't preclude them using a threat -- that is 'hey, you better cooperate, this could get bad' - type stuff.
But to your last two sentences, after queries -- I disagree.

Well, they sure as hell would have been for me had I done what Hillary did. Or maybe it's that carelessness is enough of a mens rea to get you there. Or maybe that UCMJ held the military to stricter standards. I confess that I'm not an expert as to what 18 USC 793 means outside the UCMJ context. If the latter is the case, then I think the UCMJ standards should be applied to all. I've posted to that effect several times. In particular, I think politicians get to skate out of their obligations all too often.

As for OJ, the evidence that was presented leaves me about 75% convinced that he did it. For me that falls well short of beyond a reasonable doubt but clearly well above a preponderance of evidence standard. Thus I would say that the criminal and civil cases were correctly decided differently on the same facts. It's the best example I know of the difference between the civil and criminal burdens of proof.

Quote:As for repetition --- repetition of of an action that you don't think is illegal is not really indicia of anything. For 793 (f), repetition doesn't mean squat, in fact. At a first pass, for that to really work with Hillary, you have to lay the predicate that Hillary had some willful knowledge of the the issue. Again, in her case -- problematic as hell.

As for not knowing, once you go through the proper training required to handle classified material, there is no way you can not know. When you've had it beat into your head, and you've signed an acknowledgement that it is illegal, it's hard to argue that you did not know. But that's my problem with politicians. They get clearances without proper preparation. Hillary reportedly blew off her training. She should not have been allowed to handle classified material until she had complied.

Bottom line, once you are cleared, you are not allowed to, "not know." If in fact Hillary did blow off her training, that gets her into the "should have known" category for me. As for the person who contacted, if you can reveal without doxxing then I'd be really interested in exactly what he/she does with respect to national security information.

My real fear is that we've gotten so soft with national security that nobody takes it seriously enough any more. I am quite certain that had I done what Hillary did when I held my TS, I'd still be in Leavenworth. And I retired from the Navy 30 years ago.

So yes, I am mortally pissed off that Hillary was not held to the same standard that I was.

(06-28-2023 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Plus, two primary indicia of intent are repetition and destruction of evidence. Both are present in Hillary's case.

The Clintons are two of the smartest and most calculating people in American political history. I doubt they have ever done anything in their adult lives without careful intent.
With them, the excuse of "oops I didn't know" should NEVER be taken seriously.

Quite frankly, I think politicians should be held to the highest standard in this area. If there is a difference between the UCMJ and politician standards, then politicians should be held to the UCMJ standard.

(06-28-2023 07:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq...
I had another long, detailed... line by line refutation written out to you and decided to nix it. This may not be short, but it will absolutely be shorter.

Regardless of what you think you know about my position and beliefs, you frequently misrepresent them... and not in trivial ways.... but in ways that imply that I believe things that I have specifically said that I don't. That's infuriating.

First, My comment about 'excusing' someone who had been hounded for 4 years was in response to Lad's 'excusing' someone else for something I found to be similar... so I asked him if he would grant the same 'excuse' over frustration to one person that he is granting to another. That really has nothing to do with Trump other than to use his circumstances to see if someone is truly a believer in what he is saying, or if it is merely situational. I took no position on Trump... yet for some reason, you hear me somehow excusing Trump. If you don't understand the difference in those perspectives that I'm describing, then I'll just have to live with that, because I'm done debating it with you... especially in that you were not a party to that specific question. I was questioning how committed to these 'excuses' Lad was... I was not defending Trump.

Tanq spoke to this comment in his reply, but I'm not sure what post of mine you're referring to where I excused someone someone for something you found similar.

It'd be nice to have an idea of which post I made, as I don't think any I've made have excused someone for a crime they have committed.

(06-29-2023 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Plus, two primary indicia of intent are repetition and destruction of evidence. Both are present in Hillary's case.

The Clintons are two of the smartest and most calculating people in American political history. I doubt they have ever done anything in their adult lives without careful intent.
With them, the excuse of "oops I didn't know" should NEVER be taken seriously.

One of the reasons I leaned towards the 'she should have been charged'.

But, unfortunately, your insight into the 'essence of being' for her is not allowable evidence -- insights are not part of evidentiary standard used to charging decisions or for convictions.

(06-29-2023 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2023 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Plus, two primary indicia of intent are repetition and destruction of evidence. Both are present in Hillary's case.

The Clintons are two of the smartest and most calculating people in American political history. I doubt they have ever done anything in their adult lives without careful intent.
With them, the excuse of "oops I didn't know" should NEVER be taken seriously.

One of the reasons I leaned towards the 'she should have been charged'.
But, unfortunately, your insight into the 'essence of being' for her is not allowable evidence -- insights are not part of evidentiary standard used to charging decisions or for convictions.

But before being granted access to classified material, she was required to undergo training designed to disabuse them of any "oops I didn't know" defense. And required to sign a document that states very clearly that "yes I do know, and I won't screw up."

Put that document into evidence and there goes any "essence of being" evidentiary exclusion. Now there is a rumor that Hillary blew off her instruction in national security. If that's the case, then I think you can get her on "should have known."

(06-28-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham, respectfully I think you are mistaken.

The only way I'm mistaken is that it was you, not Lad... but the intent behind my comment remains the same... I wanted to know if you would cut the same quarter to someone in what I see as a functionally similar situation, and you effectively said 'no', because of who he is. That is not equal protection to me.

I said long ago... I said it again. I essentially agreed with what I thought was Lad, and now seems to be you that people tend to 'act out' even MORE than normal, when pressed. I said I understand that frustration... I didn't say it made it 'ok'.... He's still responsible for whatever comes out of that....

Trump having a history of acting like this doesn't in any way remove him from that very human condition that you articulated that people who are harassed tend to lose patience... and the Russia deflection was absolutely harassment. It was NOT an investigation of a crime. This does not excuse him from punishment for his tantrum... It is merely meant to keep the scales of justice balanced. IMO, You can't give one person quarter and not offer it to the other under similar circumstances. You can certainly use his history to 'up' the penalty... but ass-holes and nice guys shouldn't face different systems of justice for the same crimes. The presumption of innocence is dependent upon the facts of the current case and not the history of the actor.

Quote:

Quote:No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

I fail to see where I am saying, stating, or even implying you are covering for Trump.

Not there, no... but the 'poor victim donald' comments certainly did

Quote:I dont doubt your CV. I never have. Many here can recite some of the same. And quite honestly, with those that dont have the illustrious degrees, nor the careers, I dont think I have ever made that a sticking point, nor a selling point. I tend to expect pretty much top notch from Rice people, regardless of pieces of paper, or how decorated their career is.

If I have impugned that in any way, please do tell. Or even impliedly impugned that aspect. If so, I will apologize forthwith.

I told you an opinion that I have... and you demanded that I present my 'work' to you for your approval. I think the characterizations that go along with that are obvious, but I won't assign any specific one to you so as to avoid more rabbit trails... but NONE of them involve you respecting that I've used any intelligence or experience to reach my opinion... and that somehow you have the intellectual position to 'review my work'.

There's more to it... the 'and when pressed' comment... as well as the 'at least when I state opinions' comments were similar.

It would have been different if I were trying to convince you of something that you disagreed with... but you've agreed that there have been overly-aggressive actions by the FBI and others. I haven't pressed you for details because I'm not interested in ensuring that we're on the same page in terms of how bad things are... honest people can and do draw such lines in different places.... and I think you'd agree that the government should not be allowed to break laws, even to catch BAD people... much less decent ones.

Quote:I dont find monitoring cars an issue dealing with excessive raid strength, or whatever the term is.

The raids were a different issue... but the car monitoring (with absolutely zero reason presented in these arguments to warrant it... no threats of violence... etc... They were quite literally targeting people with the opinion that there are two genders for surveillance. I find that to be abhorrent... and a clear example of the politicization of law enforcement. It's not a raid for sure, but its still on point to this discussion, IMO

Quote:No one is saying that "NO" excessive force raids/ searches/ seizures take place. I dont buy into the "ohsey nosey, nothing but Gestapo raids on people on right. Everyone run in fright if you are on the right. The KGB/ Stasi wannabes are out to get you righties."

When you make an overbroad statement, don't be surprised to be asked to back it up.

Yeah.... we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think I remotely made an overbroad statement... in fact, I said NONE of what you specifically say right here.... so you're assigning things that 'crazy' people say to me... which is IMO another example of you not respecting my intelligence. I said this before and you took unbrage, but you're still doing it. You're taking the sorts of comments that psychos in the spin room say and acting as if I've said them... just because I think 'excessive force raids/searches/siezures' are bad and need to stop... and that I view these edicts to have political underpinnings. They aren't checking the license plates of 'activists'.

Quote:Finally, stories that 'hit Congress' and hearings are *not* the best reliance matter as proof of the normal steady state. First, congress critters work diligently to 'work up' the issue -- its better red meat. Second, when there is a case that is exceptionally egregious enough to hit Congress *and* pass the Congressman 'talk it up crap' test unscathed -- yes, those are exceptional, real problems.

And apparently you don't think I'm intelligent enough to apply that test and you need to proctor me. Thanks. That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this IS an example of you not appreciating that I might know that these people are engaging in theatre, but I can still discern the wheat from the chaff. The facts are what the facts are... the videos show what the videos show... and if there is context that is not being provided, then I am smart enough to know that... but also, I'd expect those being challenged to at least attempt to provide that context. If you've watched them (and I'm sure you have) there are many years of examples of people trying to add context to books they've written or tweets they've put out etc etc etc... and some of it has merit and some of it doesn't.

Quote:And because of essentially moving for all intents and purposes from Austin to a very deep red portion, and because of some of the people I have made friends with in the center of the state, that issue has expanded. I think I am on the hook to host a fing event (not donate, but donate the venue) for one or two of the people. Hell, a congress dude or two might sit in the same chair in front of the firepit you did not so long ago if I cant bugger out of it.

I can appreciate that... and I understand that it sucks on many levels... but it also gives you an opportunity to directly express yourself and your opinions. Some will listen and some will not... and some of it will be based on how much money you give them or how much they think they can get from others to agree with your positions...which is precisely why I don't think that these people (collectively) are going to stop doing what has apparently mostly been working for them... and that is to keep arguments going... not to stop them.... and also to use their positions to get money under the table/around the rules that people just like them wrote, sometimes it seems for the specific purpose of being able to get around them.

Quote:Ham, I am not playing 'gotcha', nor have I explicitly nor impliedly 'discounted' your brains, intelligence, or background. I am saying -- when you make a bald, general statement -- be prepared to back it up. I dont expect any more, nor any less, from anyone.

If I were to say 'All present day republicans are conspiratorial looney tunes types', I would hope to god you would challenge that broad statement, and insist on some backing of it.

1) I didn't say anything like that. You apparently (including above with the 'Gestapo' raids) read that IN to whatever I said... but I made no such overly-broad sweeping generalization that 'everyone in the FBI is a fascist'. I said something more like 'the fbi has become politicized and engaged in some overly-aggressive acts'... which I didn't think needed defense.

2) If you were to make that statement, I would challenge the ALL portion, but I would agree with you (as you ultimately did with me regarding MY statement) that those people certainly do exist.... and if I challenged the 'all' and you said... well, you know what I mean... a concerningly large portion of the party... I might disagree with you, but I don't think I'd challenge it beyond that... because as I've said... we're only then arguing degrees. Is it bad, very bad, or very very very bad?

Quote:And when I say 'Yeah Trump is guilty', I am fully prepared to back my opinion comment with facts.

And if I say, he may well be... but that doesn't mean he won't 'walk' like he has on so many other issues where he has also been 'guilty' and yet walked... OR as we have discussed, some very smart, highly articulate attorney might come up with some technicality or interpretation that you haven't thought of yet... and thus as in 793(f), he TECHNICALLY isn't guilty.

Guilty people get away with things all the time. Trump has done it for 40 years.... but also, there can be dispositive facts that haven't made it into the mainstream information drone yet.

Quote:I do have one issue. If you mean to talk about what you *hope* the law should do, dont frame it using the word 'is'. I will take your word that when you describe, for example, the function of 'intent' using the word 'is' (iirc, (paraphrase) 'intent is used for punishment only'), I will accept your correction to what you intend. But please use the idea of 'should be' there. Not 'is'.

And no, when you type (paraphrase) 'intent is used for punishment only', there really is *no* context that changes the verb 'is' to 'should be' that I can see clearly.

I gave the context, but I'll try again.... and again, please ignore the legal details.
Causing the death of someone is generally a crime. The differences come in whether it was a completely unforeseen accident... vs an accident where death should have been expected, but was not intended... vs an intentional act where death was the purpose. Although we have different laws and statutes that cover each situation in that decision tree, the end result is essentially that intent makes the difference in the punishment. IMO, this should especially be true in matters like 'taking top secret documents'.

If you take the documents, you have committed a crime. I BELIEVE that is true (as in Hillary never should have had a private server.).. it may be a regulation rather than a law, but the law/regulation wasn't followed and she was allowed to do something that my company 20 years ago never would have let me do... with information much less important than 'national secrets'.

So what I'm saying is that our code already sort of does what I am suggesting... we have different punishments often based on intent... hence the 'is', from a slap on the wrist to the death penalty... and I am mostly taking issue with the 793(f) sort of 'carve out' that you brought up... where although the documents were taken... and this is 100% the entire purpose of ALL of these laws to avoid this from happening... that people can EFFECTIVELY get away with putting our entire nation at existential risk.... if they can find those carve-outs. I'm not discarding the carve-outs.... I'm just not accepting that they should be the cause for a 'not guilty' outcome.

Intent and knowledge... two almost impossible things to prove... are the most common carve outs that allow people to get away with things.

Quote:Because in high profile cases, we dont necessarily JETFL. And many then try to use a 'political or social' defense of 'X wasnt charged' as some crutch case that their fave shouldnt be charged.

Again, when the popo tag people on a road for a day or two consistently -- people slow the hell down in the area.

And if they let high profile people AVOID being tagged, you encourage THOSE people to speed even more.

You just articulated the problem... I don't know how we aren't agreeing here.

Quote:And unlike you, I dont think strict liability is an answer for a something that could lead to a felony bearing hit. And unlike you, I think the moralistic underpinning of requiring some state of mind is actually fair, and equitable.

I don't understand how convicting Biden and Pence of 'mishandling top secret documents' and giving them a relative slap on the wrist because we can't prove intent... and then throwing Trump under the bus because we can in any way denies that. And convicting Biden and Pence would have the direct impact (much like your popo example) of causing everyone else to be more careful.

I think (just picking extreme examples) the risk of exposing secure network passwords or the identity of under-cover spies warrants strict liability. It is inherent in the 'policies' that we already have for the handling of such documents... and lower level people are subjected to that sort of scrutiny all the time... but apparently if you're high enough and intent can't be proven, you're not.

National Secrets are vastly more important than an individual's medical records... but if I allow someone's medical records to be exposed, then I will face repercussions, whether it was intentional or not. Those repercussions will be different based on intent, but there will ALWAYS be repercussions. Why would we hold Federal Employees handling the nation's most secretive information to a lesser standards than the janitor at a hospital?

ETA... Accidentally exposing the names of covert spies vs accidentally exposing a schedule that is declassified a week later is a matter of luck, not policy. We have to have policies that avoid accidents.... at least as many as we possibly can.... and that means 'strict liability' (at least as I've described it).

Quote:The issue with the above is Congress doesnt enforce the laws.

I've said it numerous times so I've also gotten lazy about articulating it)... but this is a combination of errors. By breaking it up, it seems that I'm not addressing the issues... but the reality is that collectively, I do.

The heads of many/most law enforcement agencies are not elected, but appointed... by politicians. Congress (mostly the house) is often the place where 'investigations' are run. Politicians gain power and money through these fights. The biggest problems in my mind are at the top... and I believe 100% that many of these loopholes are intentional... at least them remaining is intentional... and I have thousands of pages of tax code and 'carve outs' that everyone complains about but nobody fixes, and decades of people (Like Trump, but also Biden and others) getting away with crimes based on technicalities.

If they wanted them closed, they would close them.

Quote:In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.

OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

Yes, it sucks rocks that Hillary wasnt charged. I dont agree with that decision. But, I understand some of it, because it was a hard fing case to make in a courtroom. The DOJ saves its powder for the stuff they can rock and roll on.

Right... just like how the IRS focuses on lower (not low, but lower) level/income people who have less complicated tax cases and don't have 30 trusts and can't afford the best lawyers and accountants, while the truly wealthy who can afford all of that avoid taxes.

I think this is wrong.... and why Biden's claim that hiring all these new agents to target the truly wealthy is such a farce.

To strict liability... I think National Security is important enough where it is justified... There may be others, but that I'm not talking about changing ALL of our laws. Speeding (you use this a lot) is a great example where knowledge or intent doesn't make any difference to the charge or punishment... only perhaps exigent circumstances.

Quote:Conversely, the evidence re: Trump is.....

There have been many people and times where someone has said this... and by all measures, probably been 100% correct. I don't care. What I care about is that he has STILL walked on many many many more cases than he ever should have... and that is the problem

As I've said... if THIS is what happens, that we finally get someone so brazen and with such disregard and contempt that we solve the problem, then GREAT....

but if all we do is set the bar for prosecution on the wealthy and powerful at 'someone as stupidly egregious as Trump', then we have certainly gotten Trump, but we've also enabled everyone else below him.... and as I've said, while not nearly as bad as Trump and nowhere near as brazen, Biden is WAY WAY WAY beyond my personal threshold of appropriate public servant behavior.... so I'm not satisfied with getting the guy going 150 in a school zone, but letting the guy doing 60 walk.... and I don't see how getting the guy doing 150 but letting the guy doing 60 go free does anything but encourage EVERYONE to do at least 60, and people not nearly as bad as Trump to try 70, 80, 90, 120 or 135.

If you're going to JETFL, then you need to JETFL... and your excuse that they need to 'save their powder for the cases they can rock and roll on'.

That is the problem with your solution, IMO... because that is how we got here. They save their powder for the easier cases, which all but by definition allows those who can make the case more difficult (because they have money, power or connections) to avoid prosecution.

As I said long ago.... Look at how many resources and energy... how many deals for cooperation from others... etc have been expended for many many many years to 'get Trump'.... and yet it seems that the only reason we MIGHT (key word there) ultimately be successful is because of a loophole in the NY Tax code that turns something fairly simple into a felony, OR because he was so AMAZINGLY stupid that he FINALLY tripped over his own balls.

That's not how I think the law, and especially our highest leaders should operate.

(06-29-2023 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham, respectfully I think you are mistaken.

The only way I'm mistaken is that it was you, not Lad... but the intent behind my comment remains the same... I wanted to know if you would cut the same quarter to someone in what I see as a functionally similar situation, and you effectively said 'no', because of who he is. That is not equal protection to me.

That entire back and forth on 'if he had that happen for 4 years' simply doesnt touch on the issue of 'equal protection'. In the slightest.

And in the case of equal protection, my comment was not, as you say, 'no, because who he is' -- it is 'no, the facts and evidence are different, they are different situations'. Very different positions.

Quote:I said long ago... I said it again. I essentially agreed with what I thought was Lad, and now seems to be you that people tend to 'act out' even MORE than normal, when pressed. I said I understand that frustration...

I understood your comment in that way. I dont think the history supports that position.

I didn't say it made it 'ok'.... He's still responsible for whatever comes out of that....

Quote:Trump having a history of acting like this doesn't in any way remove him from that very human condition that you articulated that people who are harassed tend to lose patience...

That wasnt my stance. The issue you brought up was that maybe 4 years of legal wrangling led him to flip the middle finger to the issues of perjury, obstruction, and complying with subpoena.

Trump has done this for 40 some odd years. My stance is that really nothing has changed from his actions in the docs case and his actions in pretty much any and all legal proceedings he is or has been a party to for several score years.

Quote:but ass-holes and nice guys shouldn't face different systems of justice for the same crimes.

Again, not my stance. My stance is that people who commit crimes should face those crimes. I dont think I have ever said or implied that different standards should exist for ******** and nice guys. Nor for the same crimes with the same actions.

In Trump's case, I dont think he is being charged with being an *******. He is charged because of actions and behavior. If 'being an *******' leads to those behaviors, tough patooties. If being a nice guy somehow led to those same behaviors, again -- tough patooties.

And yes, I think trump is an *******. Among other things. I am no lover of Trump. my feelings are for Trump as such in the criminal world is -- tough ****. Poor Donald.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

I fail to see where I am saying, stating, or even implying you are covering for Trump.

Not there, no... but the 'poor victim donald' comments certainly did

Looking at that section, yes -- I was inarticulate. I should have been clearer.

My comment should have been more along the line of: "I dont give a **** about how Donald feels. Donald has pulled this same crap for 40 or so years." I left the explicit object of my scorn -- the scorn isnt for you 'covering for Donald' (and I dont think you do), the is for the idea that I just dont buy in to the 'The feds made me do it because they have hounded me.' Given his behaviors for 40 years, I see little to no difference between 'pre hounding' and 'after hounding'.

Leaving that specific directed portion out led to my comment being unclear.

Quote:

Quote:I dont doubt your CV. I never have. Many here can recite some of the same. And quite honestly, with those that dont have the illustrious degrees, nor the careers, I dont think I have ever made that a sticking point, nor a selling point. I tend to expect pretty much top notch from Rice people, regardless of pieces of paper, or how decorated their career is.

If I have impugned that in any way, please do tell. Or even impliedly impugned that aspect. If so, I will apologize forthwith.

I told you an opinion that I have... and you demanded that I present my 'work' to you for your approval.

I would expect a broad general statement of truth to be able to have backing. From anyone. If I make a broad characterization -- ask for a backing or rationale. I am not going to get impugned by that or think that you are questioning my bona fides.

Quote:I think the characterizations that go along with that are obvious, but I won't assign any specific one to you so as to avoid more rabbit trails... but NONE of them involve you respecting that I've used any intelligence or experience to reach my opinion... and that somehow you have the intellectual position to 'review my work'.

I have every right to ask you to back broad, general, categorizations with fact. As does anyone here. As do you when others make broad, general statements.

If you feel slighted because of that or when that occurs, that is on you. Not the person that asks.

Quote:It would have been different if I were trying to convince you of something that you disagreed with... but you've agreed that there have been overly-aggressive actions by the FBI and others.

In small amounts -- yes. Everything happens in small amounts. Not enough for me to back a broad general statement of fact that they are a serious ongoing problem.

And it wasnt just that broad statement. I dont see the 'overwhelming evidence' of a Biden crime issue. I see a small amount of evidence, a somewhat larger amount of evidence that *might* suggest something further, a decent amount of reasonable supposition, and a whole fkload of just naked assumption.

So again, when you chant 'the overwhelming evidence' of that -- too bad -- I am going to ask you back that. And interestingly when you did, a decent amount of the issues you popped back were prefaced with 'youd have to be an idiot' (or something to that effect) to think that (someone) DIDNT know (something).

That is, you backed that with supposition and assumption. Which you lump into 'overwhelming evidence', and I really do not.

Quote:No one is saying that "NO" excessive force raids/ searches/ seizures take place. I dont buy into the "ohsey nosey, nothing but Gestapo raids on people on right. Everyone run in fright if you are on the right. The KGB/ Stasi wannabes are out to get you righties."

When you make an overbroad statement, don't be surprised to be asked to back it up.

Quote:Yeah.... we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think I remotely made an overbroad statement... in fact, I said NONE of what you specifically say right here.... so you're assigning things that 'crazy' people say to me...

Here is the chain of events Ham:

Lad: What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

OO: Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

Me: Can you explain -- I dont have an issue with dawn raids, and the use of handcuffs.

You: There have been numerous examples of people being 'aggressively raided' presented on the floor of Congress to the heads of these various agencies... where no real justification for such an aggressive action was presented, meanwhile plenty of evidence of significantly less aggressive options, including in some cases... someone turning themselves in was all that would have been required.

Me: Again, which ones. Specifics.

From my perspective, you jumped right in to supporting OO's position. Or, maybe you were making a random aside with zero reference to the rest of the sub-thread.

If you think asking for specifics on your defense of OOs broad comments is impugning you intelligence, well..... I dont know what to say.

Quote:I said this before and you took unbrage, but you're still doing it. You're taking the sorts of comments that psychos in the spin room say and acting as if I've said them... just because I think 'excessive force raids/searches/siezures' are bad and need to stop... and that I view these edicts to have political underpinnings.

Bummer, and you jumped to the defense of a statement that called these raids/ service of warrants/ seizures "Gestapo-like". Did you not notice that?

Quote:

Quote:Finally, stories that 'hit Congress' and hearings are *not* the best reliance matter as proof of the normal steady state. First, congress critters work diligently to 'work up' the issue -- its better red meat. Second, when there is a case that is exceptionally egregious enough to hit Congress *and* pass the Congressman 'talk it up crap' test unscathed -- yes, those are exceptional, real problems.

And apparently you don't think I'm intelligent enough to apply that test and you need to proctor me. Thanks. That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this IS an example of you not appreciating that I might know that these people are engaging in theatre, but I can still discern the wheat from the chaff.

When you present 'stuff from Congressional hearing' as a sin qua non of the state of being or the gold standard of the issue (which you pretty much do), I dont necessarily think that comment I made is really at the forefront as you say it is.

Glad to know that you are a master at separating Congressional hearing wheat from Congressional hearing chaff, and can astutely tell us which is which.

That is kind of a reason why I tend to stay away from 'it has been the subject of Congressional hearings' as a basis for factual issues --because of that comment I made above.

But I am glad to know you know the issue, and even more so you can readily report to us the Congressional hearing wheat and *not* the Congressional hearing chaff.

Quote:The facts are what the facts are... the videos show what the videos show...

Then perhaps reference them when you jump to the defense of someone complaining about the singular issue of not just raids , not just 'Gestapo-esque' raids, but apparently nothing but 'Gestapo-esque' raids when it comes to those being directed on the right.

Yes, raids suck. Suck ****. Suck balls. They are not nice things. When a raid goes down, I dont think that one guy should traipse to the door in a seersucker suit and say 'hey, Im here to pick you up.'

When LE does a raid, they have no fing idea what is going to happen.

As an example, a good friend of mine at Rice got arrested -- on the soccer fields during a women's college soccer match and he was on the sidelines. For a West U ticket.

The meekest, mildest guy you will ever know. The campos told West U to pound sand, and they would do the pick up for them. They cuffed him -- on the sidelines. Officer Ken later siad 'god I felt stupid, because XXXX is the nicest guy inthe world, and I cant believe I handcuffed him. But I did. You never know what can happen.'

Officer Ken was right.

Quote:

Quote:If I were to say 'All present day republicans are conspiratorial looney tunes types', I would hope to god you would challenge that broad statement, and insist on some backing of it.

2) If you were to make that statement, I would challenge the ALL portion, but I would agree with you (as you ultimately did with me regarding MY statement) that those people certainly do exist.... and if I challenged the 'all' and you said... well, you know what I mean... a concerningly large portion of the party... I might disagree with you, but I don't think I'd challenge it beyond that... because as I've said... we're only then arguing degrees. Is it bad, very bad, or very very very bad?

I would hope for pushback on even if I said it was a serious problem in the Republican party, for that matter. Again, it is a broad, over generalization presented as fact. And should not be accepted for anything but opinion.

Quote:

Quote:Again, when the popo tag people on a road for a day or two consistently -- people slow the hell down in the area.

And if they let high profile people AVOID being tagged, you encourage THOSE people to speed even more.

a) And if you let the vice mayor speed -- you get more speeding.

b) When you subsequently let the ex-mayor speed -- you get more speeding.

c) If, instead you fine the ex-mayor 3k for driving 90+ over the limit, people slow the fk down.
'
Our decision point right now is to choose between b) and c).

Quote:You just articulated the problem... I don't know how we aren't agreeing here.

You are introducing a) as an out.

Quote:

Quote:And unlike you, I dont think strict liability is an answer for a something that could lead to a felony bearing hit. And unlike you, I think the moralistic underpinning of requiring some state of mind is actually fair, and equitable.

I don't understand how convicting Biden and Pence of 'mishandling top secret documents' and giving them a relative slap on the wrist because we can't prove intent... and then throwing Trump under the bus because we can in any way denies that. And convicting Biden and Pence would have the direct impact (much like your popo example) of causing everyone else to be more careful.

At the expense of removing mens rea from a felony consideration. That is off the table for me.

Quote:

Quote:In terms of differences, maybe the parable of OJ sums it up for me the best.

OJ should have been convicted. He was not. I am not going to let OJ getting out of it be a rationale to change a 'motive required' crime to a strict liability crime.

To strict liability... I think National Security is important enough where it is justified... There may be others, but that I'm not talking about changing ALL of our laws. Speeding (you use this a lot) is a great example where knowledge or intent doesn't make any difference to the charge or punishment... only perhaps exigent circumstances.

I think removing a mens rea element from felony bearing issue is idiotic.

I think making docs cases strict liability would severely hamper the ability of the CounterInt folks to easily assess the fallout of a problem -- might even eliminate people volunteering their own innocent breach. Which I think is a second element of idiotic.

(06-29-2023 01:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think removing a mens rea element from felony bearing issue is idiotic.
I think making docs cases strict liability would severely hamper the ability of the CounterInt folks to easily assess the fallout of a problem -- might even eliminate people volunteering their own innocent breach. Which I think is a second element of idiotic.

Well, that's the way it worked when I held my TS. We had it drilled into us that if sensitive information ended up in enemy hands, it didn't matter whether there was intent or not.

The thing is that you are subject to an intense background investigation and receive intensive training before receiving a clearance. In addition to that training you sign an acknowledgement that you understand that if you screw up, not having the mens rea will not get you off. The problem is that we don't have the same standards for politicians. To complicate matters a bit, there are revelations that Hillary basically blew off what training was scheduled for her.

I think that anybody who has ever held a security clearance was totally incensed with the way Hillary's situation turned out.