Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeats 'lock her up' chant

[GMDino]

Really cool to see we also have experts in legality willing to challenge the findings of everyone else.  

Good thing Clinton didn't win the election!  She might have shown some confusion over deleting a few emails.  There would have had to have been a dozen congressional investigations into it and that just would have distracted the country.  Luckily we have Mr. Trump and his squeaky clean image and reputation.  No distractions there.

Gives me hope that when the Mueller investigation comes to a close they will be here to tell us how Democrats are bad and dirty and Trump was unfairly attacked.  

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 07:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I figured :)
Maybe I'm just over-sensitive to heads of the judiciary prejudging cases and appearing to root for a certain outcome that is devastating for a political opponent.
Paint them as a bunch of thugs, and the trenches get deeper than necessary, people start believing in conspiracies etc... an AG needs to know better.
But maybe these times are simply gone.

Like I said, I agree he should not have joined in. Just don't see it as a big deal.

(07-26-2018, 07:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: That I never doubted. But it's not simply about showing bias, it's about the way in which bias is showed.

I get that, but still ...

(07-26-2018, 07:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Plus, I do hold the AG to a higher standard reagrding those things, given he is, well, the attorney general and such. Being held to a higher standard than everyday folk comes with the job.

Certainly the AG should be held to the higher standard, but I don't see this situation being something that should concern anyone UNLESS Hillary is soon to be indicted. In which case, Sessions should recuse himself because of this situation.

(07-26-2018, 07:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Also, sorry for skipping some points :) I have a hard time taking a position where I'd defend Hillary. She did bad and to some part she brought all that on herself. The same, even to a way larger extent, I think can be said about Trump.

I don't blame you. I feel the same way whenever I have to defend Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2018, 07:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Then why did the FBI not press charges?
Also, do you honestly believe the chanters know about Section 1924 of Title XVIII. I'd figure they rather follow a rallying cry like with Benghazi. 

Because they deemed she broke the law out of carelessness and not intent; however, laws were broken. I doubt the chanters know it; as it appears The Secretary of State didn't know it.  

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because they deemed she broke the law out of carelessness and not intent; however, laws were broken. I doubt the chanters know it; as it appears The Secretary of State didn't know it.  

Intent (mens rea) is required to break most laws.  That is why there is not a vehicular assault charge every time one car hits another.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2018, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Intent (mens rea) is required to break most laws.  That is why there is not a vehicular assault charge every time one car hits another.

Not this again. 

Because there was no mental state of willfullness; however, a law was broken. It's the same thing the FBI decided with Hills. They recognized laws were broken; however, a crime was not committed because it was not done through gross negligence; simply carelessness. 

No folks can (and have) argue all day if the FBI was wise in their findings; however, no one argues that laws were not broken. 


Let's throw this up against the wall and see if it sticks:

My brakes went out of my car and I ran the red light

A cop pulled me over. Why did he pull me over? Because it is against the law to run a red light

Once he stops me I show him that my brakes malfunctioned

He decides not to charge me with a crime because I did not willfully break the law; but I indeed broke the law and that's why I was stopped.

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not this again. 

Because there was no mental state of willfullness; however, a law was broken. It's the same thing the FBI decided with Hills. They recognized laws were broken; however, a crime was not committed because it was not done through gross negligence; simply carelessness. 

No folks can (and have) argue all day if the FBI was wise in their findings; however, no one argues that laws were not broken. 

This may seem like meaningless semantics to you, but it really isn't.  If intent is an element of a crime then no law is broken without intent.

A law is not broken everytime a car hits another car because the law says intent (or gross negligence) is required.  Just because one car hits another that does not mean a law was broken.

[hollodero]

(07-26-2018, 02:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't blame you. I feel the same way whenever I have to defend Trump.

 oh yeah, that must be tough too.


As for Sessions, he obviously said that he "perhaps should have taken a moment to advise them you're presumed innocent until cases are made." Well, who am I to argue with an AG. Perhaps he indeed should have.

But with him at least saying that some days after, I'm calmed now.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 06:20 AM)hollodero Wrote:  oh yeah, that must be tough too.


As for Sessions, he obviously said that he "perhaps should have taken a moment to advise them you're presumed innocent until cases are made." Well, who am I to argue with an AG. Perhaps he indeed should have.

But with him at least saying that some days after, I'm calmed now.

I'm sure you're not surprised nor unaware that many people cannot remain calm when talking politics.

[*bfine32*]

IMO, Trump should ask Ivanka and Jared to step down. I don't buy any excuse of "different".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-insists-ivankas-use-personal-email-wasnt-like-hillary-clinton-225837009.html

Quote:President Donald Trump dismissed concerns about his daughter, Ivanka’s, use of a private email address for government business when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday. Trump argued the situation was far different from the email scandal that enveloped his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential race.

He won't do it, but he should.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-20-2018, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO, Trump should ask Ivanka and Jared to step down. I don't buy any excuse of "different".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-insists-ivankas-use-personal-email-wasnt-like-hillary-clinton-225837009.html


He won't do it, but he should.

They shouldn’t be there to begin with. This isn’t a family business where you bring your kids in and if they suck then only the business fails.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2018, 10:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They shouldn’t be there to begin with. This isn’t a family business where you bring your kids in and if they suck then only the business fails.

JFK bringing in Bobby is the best example I can think of, but it's been a while. I believe I read/heard POTUS can have family members as staff as long as they are not involved in any policy making.

But I agree they never should have been given their positions. Just be happy being rich. 

[Benton]

(11-20-2018, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: JFK bringing in Bobby is the best example I can think of, but it's been a while. I believe I read/heard POTUS can have family members as staff as long as they are not involved in any policy making.

But I agree they never should have been given their positions. Just be happy being rich. 

Whataboutism?

[GMDino]

(11-20-2018, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: JFK bringing in Bobby is the best example I can think of, but it's been a while. I believe I read/heard POTUS can have family members as staff as long as they are not involved in any policy making.

But I agree they never should have been given their positions. Just be happy being rich. 

Isn't that solely what Jared does?  Or does the right trip over themselves giving him credit for every agreement just for kicks?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2018, 10:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Isn't that solely what Jared does?  Or does the right trip over themselves giving him credit for every agreement just for kicks?

He's not saying Jared falls under that category, just that that should be the only position they should have.  I'd be happy for family members to have no positions  whatsoever.  I don't mind the spouse having an informal one.  I mean if Hillary won it would be stupid not to get Bill's input. Or 43 getting advice from 41.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2018, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: He's not saying Jared falls under that category, just that that should be the only position they should have.  I'd be happy for family members to have no positions  whatsoever.  I don't mind the spouse having an informal one.  I mean if Hillary won it would be stupid not to get Bill's input.  Or 43 getting advice from 41.

Yeah, I was accusing him of not knowing.  I was just saying the right loves Jared and his foreign policy wins.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2018, 10:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, I was accusing him of not knowing.  I was just saying the right loves Jared and his foreign policy wins.

Then I must be something else because I despise that guy.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Further debate on the matter is fruitless; as I can show you how she broke laws such as as NARA and Section 1924 of Title XVIII . You just continue to go with the narrative you asserted that folks chanted "lock her up" simply for doing her job.  I'll go with there's a little more to it. 

As good as place as any to post this.

NOTABLE: Gowdy and Goodlatte also say they can’t conclude based on evidence they reviewed whether a case could have been brought against Clinton. That cuts against the pro-Trump orthodoxy that enough evidence already existed to charge her. pic.twitter.com/VVrQxEdvTH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 28, 2018

Whole thread there about the end of the investigation.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1078786624694247430


*THIS* investigation started October 2017....

[*Nately120*]

Can we just seal Hillary in the border wall, or something?