Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #120 on: August 30, 2015, 07:28:46 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??

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #121 on: August 31, 2015, 09:07:25 AM »

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #122 on: August 31, 2015, 08:58:41 PM »

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.
cyn, I see you Ann..........I see you girl

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ann+Coulter&Form=VQFRVP

Re: POTUS
« Reply #123 on: September 01, 2015, 09:21:46 AM »

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.

You are right 👉 this is pure entertainment. Did I forget to enlighten anyone to my delight at Hillary Clinton seriously silly folly.  Bernie sanders is now poised to win Iowa and newhampshire. His polls rise and hers falls.  Continuing to fall every single month.  The donald is a yawner to me. Too many pubs on this block at the moment. 17? 

So. I just buttered some more popcorn. Salt. Lol and I am enjoying watching partisan judges, inspectors general, Obama's doj, and the extremely partisan FBI get to the bottom of her b.s.   lmao.

So, ah yip, its enjoyable.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #124 on: September 10, 2015, 01:45:57 PM »
So amazing, here's a kernel to chew on: Clinton is surely going to lose new Hampshire and today sanders is beating her in Iowa.

Not sure the nomination has gone to any candidate who hasn't won at least one of those two states...

The overly partisan FBI  still investigating her as well.

I dont know if having super delegates support you is end all be all.  I'll go with the law rather than popular opinion everytime. It makes ME money. :)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #125 on: September 10, 2015, 02:05:05 PM »
You can't "lose" a state to the other party in the primary FYI.
And as you can see, she is not getting any closer to prison.


Re: POTUS
« Reply #126 on: September 18, 2015, 03:07:52 PM »
You can't "lose" a state to the other party in the primary FYI.
And as you can see, she is not getting any closer to prison.



Sanders IS a Democrat and Hillary now could lose BOTH states to him.
Understand?
If Clinton wants the nomination she has to win at least one of them.


Tick tick tick....plead the 5th!

So f Ing enjoyable.. And wow! Carly! Now that is a great female candidate out of the bix

Re: POTUS
« Reply #127 on: September 18, 2015, 08:36:27 PM »
You can't "lose" a state to the other party in the primary FYI.
And as you can see, she is not getting any closer to prison.



Sanders IS a Democrat and Hillary now could lose BOTH states to him.
Understand?
If Clinton wants the nomination she has to win at least one of them.


Tick tick tick....plead the 5th!

So f Ing enjoyable.. And wow! Carly! Now that is a great female candidate out of the bix
He is literally so unimportant that I didn't even know what party he was. I had to google it to remember "oh, old white guy"
yeah he wont win anything.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #128 on: September 20, 2015, 08:35:22 AM »
Good for you. Keep googling. It's an information treasure chest.  It's ok, people didn't know who Barack  Obama was either.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #129 on: September 20, 2015, 07:01:07 PM »
Good for you. Keep googling. It's an information treasure chest.  It's ok, people didn't know who Barack  Obama was either.
I refer you to my token math formula