This is probably the 5th or 6th time this immigration discussion has occurred since I started posting about the election. On top of that I never demanded cultural purity or advocate for an ethnostate.
Anyways I don’t particularly care to go through it again.
I doubt a hidden unsecured server located in a bathroom is a proper place.
Not I. I’d be here beating the drum on that very act.
The logic underlying the excerpts I copied is echoed in a lot of write-ups I read.
However, I am pretty sure TB is a lawyer, so don’t take any words I actually write over any he does.
I wonder how quickly the low information voter gets their information. Will a significant portion of the population voting be unaware that she was cleared again?
It may not matter
I guess I’m sympathetic to the whole view that Washington is filled with back-scratching, pay-to-play, corrupt, self-enriching, lying, often living by another standard, slime-balls.
I just didn’t see how sending Trump, of all people, to Washington repudiated all that…Seemed like more of the same.
Amen, Sloth…
Amen.
I appreciate everyone’s input here, including those I don’t necessarily agree with. It definitely broadens my views and prevents the bubble effect.
They may or may not - deciding to pursue an action or not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion is on a sliding scale, and there is more reason to pursue the higher the position of the person mishandling the information due to the higher stakes and obvious need to incent behavior at high levels not to do such things. And this being sui generis - the nation’s top diplomat recklessly putting national security at risk - it needed to be addressed by DOJ.
but, in any event…
…Comey isn’t a prosecutor. It isn’t his call. Whether a reasonable prosecutor would bring it or not is for DOJ to decide.
I don’t follow…?
[quote=“Sloth, post:4515, topic:218984, full:true”]
To be clear, I am neither capable of nor interested in defending the reasoning of Vladeck or Wittes or anybody else I cited. I pulled quotes from them in order to show that many of the (well-qualified) people I follow on matters of law argued that it was reasonable for HRC to not face indictment. If you are asking me whether a series of three questions posed on a non-law-related message board encourage me to question the sincerity or acumen of the legal authorities I follow, the answer is no.
As I said above, I would vote in a heartbeat for David Petraeus (I hope I get a chance to in 2020, when HRC’s past indiscretions will nullify his own), and his failure of judgment vis-a-vis classified material went so far as to clearly involve intent.
[quote=“smh_23, post:4527, topic:218984, full:true”]
Yeah, it was more me questioning the Professor. That in particular just struck me as odd.
[quote=“Sloth, post:4528, topic:218984, full:true”]
I understand. I assume it’s complicated, is my point.
Whoever recorded that needs to get to the hospital because they are going to have a heart attack.
Didn’t see this earlier.
To be clear, I am not under the impression that I could argue this matter with you. Everything I know about it is from secondary sources designed for the general reading public.
Oh, I didn’t think you were arguing, and I wasn’t arguing in any event - just relaying my thoughts in connection with my post to Max.
I said earlier at some point, I don’t believe Comey put his finger on the scale to affirmatively help Clinton, but I do think he made a truly political decision to prevent the FBI from deciding a national election. In doing so, he also helped DOJ avoid having to take the heat for the decision. But I don’t think that was his agenda.
Nate Silver predicting Trump wins Florida. Nate Silver Is Unskewing Polls — All Of Them — In Trump’s Direction
What if those disgruntled FBI agents decided to leak all the details seeing how Comey pulled back on this ?
It doesn’t appear to be as cut and dry as you make the issue out to be.
