Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #110 on: August 28, 2015, 03:18:46 PM »
Lok,

I'm not wagering anything (I dont think that would be fair to you) but the details of the wager sound interesting.

You do at least acknowledge that basically anything can happen. Perhaps the world will end tomorrow, as we know it.  You even NOW recognize that she could be prosecuted. Good.

Look, Lok---this is already a prima facie case.  This is already out of the barn simply on the sheer facts of the case. 

Whether you want to recognize that this is historically significant it is popcorn popping ready made and enjoyable, prima facie enjoyable.

And it will come down to 18usc 793.

I dont think your belief that the new York times debunking this criminal case holds water. Because the FBI has confirmed illegal activity with regard to Hillary Clinton's government correspondence.

Remember the Republican establishment was going ahead full steam until the FBI concluded its " security investigations" of Richard Nixon.  You should see what those odds that he would win again.  2 to 1.

Like you say Clinton is a sure thing to lock down the nomination right up until she isn't. ;)

Such fun, lok right?  More fun than the Donald's antics because this stuff matters right now.  The Donald's gonna be around for a while.  Clinton's time is nigh.

I love the banter, man.




Re: POTUS
« Reply #111 on: August 28, 2015, 03:23:24 PM »
Cin seems to have "should" confused with "will"

I remember a kid I grew up with telling me once when another kid threatened to kill him "He CANT do that" "what?" "He'd go to jail, so he CAN"T, this isn't some movie, this is REAL LIFE, get a clue!!!!"  (I almost felt the need to pop popcorn and get a rain coat and goggles to sit in the front row for the show)

The kid lived, and no doubt thought that "proof" of his theory, but it blows my mind to this day. Prison is filled with murderers but Ted Kennedy wasn't sharing a cell with anyone of them. Nor will Hillary.

Kids make all kinds of promises they can't keep.  You are right about real life. FBI on your ass is as real as it gets.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #112 on: August 28, 2015, 03:36:20 PM »
But, fwiw, I neither know, nor care, if Clinton is telling the truth, or did something wrong.

You seem to place great valence on certain issues, no doubt influenced by your priors. I could care less. Clinton is not my preferred candidate. I just make Bayesian predictions. That's why I still think that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee - not because I support her, but because I know that Sander and O'Malley will never win the primaries, and no one else has (yet) announced their candidacy, and the Clinton, to date, has gone far past anyone else in the invisible primary. Also? Most voters aren't paying attention right now, so while you might care deeply, unless something real develops (which is unlikely) this will just be considered more partisan smoke- people who don't like her will continue to not like her, people who do like her will think it's a partisan witchhunt, and people in the middle (all three of them) won't be able to tease out the details a year from now.

Based upon what I know, I find it exceptionally unlikely that this will amount to anything. In addition, you have misinterpreted the facts to date (IMO). That doesn't mean you can't be right. Anything can happen. Maybe there will be some smoking gun. Maybe the constant "drip drip" of revelation will erode Clinton's support and cause her to drop out of the race. But I doubt it- and I find wagers tend to clarify matters.
Loki, you know how much I HATE the idea the agreeing with you, even remotely, on anything, but also factor in that this guy already claims to not only know what WILL happen in the future but what DID happen in the past. He was there I guess??? So much for due process. A Republican said she did it. She must have done it.


Lol if a Republican said Clinton did it then she did it?  Really? What if 2 of Obama's inspectors general said she did it then referred it to the FBI?  Then the FBI has to investigate it and finds 18 USC 793 and maybe 1943 has been broken? 

Can we assume on prima facie that Hillary Clinton might have commuted a felony or the FBI is on a partisan witchunt?

Because shucks, golly gee those 'publicans are so powerful they got Obama, his inspectors general and the FBI doing the bidding. 

And btw Hillary is going through due process right now.  Lets see if it ends up being a felony .  She's probably clean like bill Cosby.  Or was his due process squashed like Clinton?

Just sayin. 
Perhaps I'm jumping the gun but what the hell. Clinton is toast, like Nixon was toast.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #113 on: August 28, 2015, 06:44:14 PM »

this is already a prima facie case. 
I honestly don't think you know what that word means

Re: POTUS
« Reply #114 on: August 28, 2015, 06:45:52 PM »
Cin seems to have "should" confused with "will"

I remember a kid I grew up with telling me once when another kid threatened to kill him "He CANT do that" "what?" "He'd go to jail, so he CAN"T, this isn't some movie, this is REAL LIFE, get a clue!!!!"  (I almost felt the need to pop popcorn and get a rain coat and goggles to sit in the front row for the show)

The kid lived, and no doubt thought that "proof" of his theory, but it blows my mind to this day. Prison is filled with murderers but Ted Kennedy wasn't sharing a cell with anyone of them. Nor will Hillary.

Kids make all kinds of promises they can't keep.  You are right about real life. FBI on your ass is as real as it gets.
The entire point of my post went right over your head
as does the concept of the FBI and what their investigation actually is and what it means. Honestly, did you even take 1L yet? Do you have any clue what due process is or how it works? At all??

Re: POTUS
« Reply #115 on: August 28, 2015, 06:48:15 PM »
But, fwiw, I neither know, nor care, if Clinton is telling the truth, or did something wrong.

You seem to place great valence on certain issues, no doubt influenced by your priors. I could care less. Clinton is not my preferred candidate. I just make Bayesian predictions. That's why I still think that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee - not because I support her, but because I know that Sander and O'Malley will never win the primaries, and no one else has (yet) announced their candidacy, and the Clinton, to date, has gone far past anyone else in the invisible primary. Also? Most voters aren't paying attention right now, so while you might care deeply, unless something real develops (which is unlikely) this will just be considered more partisan smoke- people who don't like her will continue to not like her, people who do like her will think it's a partisan witchhunt, and people in the middle (all three of them) won't be able to tease out the details a year from now.

Based upon what I know, I find it exceptionally unlikely that this will amount to anything. In addition, you have misinterpreted the facts to date (IMO). That doesn't mean you can't be right. Anything can happen. Maybe there will be some smoking gun. Maybe the constant "drip drip" of revelation will erode Clinton's support and cause her to drop out of the race. But I doubt it- and I find wagers tend to clarify matters.
Loki, you know how much I HATE the idea the agreeing with you, even remotely, on anything, but also factor in that this guy already claims to not only know what WILL happen in the future but what DID happen in the past. He was there I guess??? So much for due process. A Republican said she did it. She must have done it.



Can we assume on prima facie
 
No..............on anything............honestly, look words up before using them.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #116 on: August 28, 2015, 09:12:50 PM »
Cin seems to have "should" confused with "will"

I remember a kid I grew up with telling me once when another kid threatened to kill him "He CANT do that" "what?" "He'd go to jail, so he CAN"T, this isn't some movie, this is REAL LIFE, get a clue!!!!"  (I almost felt the need to pop popcorn and get a rain coat and goggles to sit in the front row for the show)

The kid lived, and no doubt thought that "proof" of his theory, but it blows my mind to this day. Prison is filled with murderers but Ted Kennedy wasn't sharing a cell with anyone of them. Nor will Hillary.

Kids make all kinds of promises they can't keep.  You are right about real life. FBI on your ass is as real as it gets.
The entire point of my post went right over your head
as does the concept of the FBI and what their investigation actually is and what it means. Honestly, did you even take 1L yet? Do you have any clue what due process is or how it works? At all??

Based on the plain language of the federal statute hillary clinton committed a crime, ok?  On the basis of known facts she violated the law, understand? Hillary clinton was "gathering, transmitting and/or losing defense information"  She did this knowingly and actively utilizing her personal email and personal server.  You can review it under  u.s. code 793 check out e. and f. 


If I don't write in Latin can you still grasp some comprehension or are you just an insecure troll?

perhaps I was a tad facetious, regarding your little kid story, so sorry.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #117 on: August 29, 2015, 08:23:22 AM »
I understand what you THINK you are trying to get it.
But it all rides on her DOING it. And then them being able to PROVE it.
Where you THERE? Do you know all the rules of admissible evidence?
Did you even finish 1L yet??

Re: POTUS
« Reply #118 on: August 29, 2015, 12:07:49 PM »
I understand what you THINK you are trying to get it.
But it all rides on her DOING it. And then them being able to PROVE it.
Where you THERE? Do you know all the rules of admissible evidence?
Did you even finish 1L yet??

Her emails, her missing emails discovered in blumenthals evidenced emails,her deleted emails.  Which we call proof.  The 2 inspector generals discovery of highly classified info in her emails.
The law 18 USC 793 e f.

So, my friend, upon initial examination there IS sufficient corroborating evidence  which appears to exist to support a case?  And guess what? A prosecutor is examining how this will be played out--the prosecutor took out a highly decorated General.  Dum da dum dum.

Percipio percepi perceptum.  ;)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #119 on: August 29, 2015, 01:05:46 PM »
I understand what you THINK you are trying to get it.
But it all rides on her DOING it. And then them being able to PROVE it.
Where you THERE? Do you know all the rules of admissible evidence?
Did you even finish 1L yet??

Her emails, her missing emails discovered in blumenthals evidenced emails,her deleted emails.  Which we call proof.  The 2 inspector generals discovery of highly classified info in her emails.
The law 18 USC 793 e f.

So, my friend, upon initial examination there IS sufficient corroborating evidence  which appears to exist to support a case?  And guess what? A prosecutor is examining how this will be played out--the prosecutor took out a highly decorated General.  Dum da dum dum.

Percipio percepi perceptum.  ;)
inferences are not convictions.

I am not saying that a jury couldn't (in theory) decide that was enough to be circumstantial evidence and convict on it, but that is all dependent on it even going to trial (it most likely won't-learn about how politics work) and even then, even if convicted, your Nixon comparison is horrible since he was never convicted and left of his own free will. Bill was convicted, rode out his term, and would have been re-elected again but for term limits.

I know you THINK you are smart, but everything you post just keeps showing more and more how you only think so.

And stop female private part footing around it, you complete 1L yet or not??