Author Topic: pardon me  (Read 16489 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #100 on: September 07, 2017, 04:27:32 PM »
WS, it seems to me you're conflating two issues, one of which is whether a place is someone's home, and the other of which is whether it's their country. Or more broadly, it's an issue of what feels like home and what IS home, if you prefer to put it that way. America feels like home to the kids in question, but that's not the same as it being their home. It's tough to find appropriate language to use on this topic. Just to clarify, let's use "home" right now as meaning where a person is meant to live, as opposed to where they would feel comfortable living. Some people have a home but would rather have one in a different place, so maybe they move, or apply for a visa, or whatever. But some people don't have a home. In the case of citizens people of that sort, who literally don't have homes to live in (abodes) are called homeless. But there are non-citizens who may well have abodes to live in, but in a way they are homeless too. Their parents made a decision that their children would be homeless - have no country that is their own - in exchange for increased comfort with the risk that it could be taken away if they're discovered. So I think framing the issue as having their home taken away is unfair. I think the reality is more like their parents took away from them the chance to have a real home, and as a result they became attached to a place that isn't legally theirs. I mean, consider a wacky example: some parents discover a passageway to the attic of someone's house (like in the Narnia series) and decide to squat there. They stay there undiscovered for so long that children are born in that attic and it's home to them. I hardly think you'd raise a fuss if, once discovered, the police proceeded to remove them all for trespassing (I guess the owners finally needed something from the attic). In this instance the kids aren't responsible, consider the place to be their home, and all the rest, but I can't imagine anyone would advocate for allowing them to continue living in someone else's attic. The analogy isn't perfect, but perhaps at least describes what I'm getting at.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #101 on: September 07, 2017, 04:58:19 PM »
It all depends on whether you are indifferent to people who are not Americans, it seems to me. I am less of a nationalist, and more of a globalist or a humanist. So I'm going to determine that we and the people in question are better off with them staying than going, and that allowing them to remain in the country has negative impact on relatively few existing legal residents.

If you leave any consideration of well being of non-Americans out of the equation, then you could clearly come up with the other conclusion. Similar consideration comes up when considering refugees, H1B visas, foreign economic aid and trade agreements. Not to mention overt military and economic sanctions.

The children in the hypothetical attic would be expected to be cared for. I don't think they'd just be removed from the attic and set free in the woods. Pushing the analogy to bursting, some of the residents of the house realize they have extra food and these are nice kids and want them to stay. Other residents of the house think its too crowded and want the kids gone.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #102 on: September 07, 2017, 06:56:03 PM »
I understand what you're getting at, Fenring.  It's just that it seems to ignore what it means to the Dreamers.

The place one grows up is home.  It is their country.  Even if by objective standards one could say this is not their home, by subjective standards that is a complete lie.  Having someone tell you, "you were born in this foreign country, so that is your real country" is meaningless to the person.  I mean, what if someone came up to you today and told you that you aren't actually a citizen, and you have to go home to your native country right away?  :o  What would that mean to you?  Wouldn't leaving your friends, your school, your job, your home be on the top of your mind, perhaps more than the worry about what the country you're going to is like?  Wouldn't those things be at least as important?  It is no different for them.

It's more than just comfort.  It is attachment.  We are attached to where we grew up, to the places where everything in our lives have happened.  It is more than just convenience, or opportunity, or "easy living."  It's identity.  We all identify with where we live and grew up.  Which is more than just the place we eat and sleep.

Even though the crime is being here illegally, the punishment of taking away the only home they ever knew is disproportionate to that crime, especially since they had no say in committing the crime.  Culpability is a factor in punishment.  And this punishment, although it fits the crime and undoes the harm, is too severe for these young adults who had no culpability.

Taking away a person's home is not justice for a crime they had no part in committing.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #103 on: September 07, 2017, 07:59:22 PM »
All the empathetic arguments in the world don't fix the law.  Call your Congressperson and Senator and demand some action.  I agree, we should make every effort to permanently resolve the issue.

However, the stories you're telling (and that's what they are) are no more likely to be valid than the stories I was telling.  You're making a massive assumption that it would be unfair to a particular person to deport them, without really evaluating it. 

I think inherent too, is a discrimination you feel with respect to the countries to which they would be deported.  I've never heard any outrage about deporting someone to Europe or China (and it does happen on occasion), but send someone to Mexico and people act like you've killed them and destroyed their lives, notwithstanding that children grow up there every day.

I also really really object to the soft accusations of racism that aren't provable.  If you can't distinguish between legitimate operations that result in the deportation of more people from Mexico and South America than from other places (when the ratio of illegal immigrants is heavily slanted in the same direction) and racist attacks on people of hispanic descent the failing is really on you.  Change the law, make it say what you want it say, but until then its a ridiculous point.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #104 on: September 07, 2017, 10:02:27 PM »
It all depends on whether you are indifferent to people who are not Americans, it seems to me. I am less of a nationalist, and more of a globalist or a humanist. So I'm going to determine that we and the people in question are better off with them staying than going, and that allowing them to remain in the country has negative impact on relatively few existing legal residents.

Then perhaps you'll have an answer to the question I posed earlier that went unanswered: if you believe these people should stay since, as WS believes, it's their home, and as you say, that we're better off with them, what is your position about totally open borders? It seems to me that allowing those who've broken the law to stay on the grounds that 'they're already here' seems to discriminate against the people who obeyed the law and didn't come here. If they had known that showing up illegally would result in de facto citizenship then presumably many millions more would have tried, from all over the world. They don't because I think they have the impression that they'll be stopped; some probably don't because they choose to obey the laws on principle. But why have the law and then not enforce it only for those who already disobeyed it? Wouldn't the moral choice, if you believe we're better off with them, to simply vastly increase immigration quotas, or even do away with any cap and conditions whatsoever? Why do you feel, for instance, that we're better off with the ones that happen to already be here? Why are they better than some arbitrary group of foreign people who'd love to live in America but didn't dare to come?

In short, if you believe in globalism and that illegal immigrants are no problem at all for America, structurally (mean, don't 'steal jobs', have no underlying costs to citizens, etc), then surely you must be in favor of allowing, saying 500 million new immigrants at the drop of a hat, right? After all, they have as much right to America as Americans have.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #105 on: September 08, 2017, 11:02:52 AM »
Quote
In short, if you believe in globalism and that illegal immigrants are no problem at all for America, structurally (mean, don't 'steal jobs', have no underlying costs to citizens, etc), then surely you must be in favor of allowing, saying 500 million new immigrants at the drop of a hat, right? After all, they have as much right to America as Americans have.

Nice number. Pull that out of thin air did you?

I believe in allowing at least the roughly one million per year illegal migration as legal. With proper background checks, etc, which would be different than an open border like between EU countries. I wouldn't be against having employment sponsorship be a factor, and I think companies should be free to prefer foreign workers over US natives.

I also favor trade agreements like NAFTA that have reduced the need for people to migrate to America for jobs.

Absolutely, I agree that indefinitely recurring amnesties are no way to solve these issues.

I don't believe Americans should have some special advantage. I believe, like most free market economists, that border controls are a drain on economic efficiency and more narrowly to the American economy.

I'd also like require every native born American to pass a citizenship test equal to what immigrants have to go through. Not practical, but illustrates how I think being an American should be about who you are and what you have to offer, not where you were born or where your Mom and Dad live.

I only see DACA as a particularly interesting case because I see them as de-facto Americans. They think like Americans, they got their current jobs under a legal application system, they pay taxes. They are integrated members of our communities. I very much see them as a strong step in the right direction, but I absolutely would not stop there.

When the US formed, there was a debate about State border control. We recognized that we would be far better off if states had free commerce between them, and the ability to freely travel between them. I don't see why making a transition to that on a more global scale with certain caveats isn't an equally good goal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #106 on: September 08, 2017, 11:19:13 AM »
Quote
500 million new immigrants

Nice number. Pull that out of thin air did you?

The number is irrelevant, it could be less, or more. If the U.S. literally announced to the world "anyone who wants to come, just show up and you're in", I doubt you could even begin to calculate what the result would be. A LOT of people would come.

Quote
I believe in allowing at least the roughly one million per year illegal migration as legal.

You've picked an arbitrary number. What if more wanted to come than that? More to the point, what if it was irrefutably proved that admitting many millions would reduce quality of life for Americans. You'd argue it would benefit America, based on your idea of economics, but by hypothesis what if the opposite were true - that it would decimate quality of life, 100% guaranteed. Then what would you say? Let them in on principle and spite current Americans, or establish protective measures regardless of how distasteful that sounds to you?

Quote
I don't believe Americans should have some special advantage. I believe, like most free market economists, that border controls are a drain on economic efficiency and more narrowly to the American economy.

If Americans should have no advantage then why not spend taxpayer money on supporting jobs in India? Why bother to spend on American infrastructure or jobs? I think you're missing a fundamental premise of what government literally is when you say that Americans should have no advantage. If you believe in free markets then you're even further off the mark than you may realize. Free people who can self-organize through free association will find ways to organize in such a way as to establish an advantage, and superiority if they can achieve that. Their system will be designed to advantage themselves, naturally. If government is anything other than the culmination of a system of advantage for a united people then it is a failure. By saying you think Americans shouldn't have an advantage what you're actually saying is that you believe they should be bebarred from establishing advantageous conditions for themselves. You're arguing against the right to free association and making decisions that benefit the group. Any time you say that government should be used to enforce the lack of advantage of the people represented by that government you're basically saying it should cease to represent them and become a tyranny (whether benevolent or not).

Quote
When the US formed, there was a debate about State border control. We recognized that we would be far better off if states had free commerce between them, and the ability to freely travel between them. I don't see why making a transition to that on a more global scale with certain caveats isn't an equally good goal.

Maybe because the states never entered into such an agreement with the rest of the world?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #107 on: September 08, 2017, 11:48:37 AM »
The number is irrelevant, it could be less, or more. If the U.S. literally announced to the world "anyone who wants to come, just show up and you're in", I doubt you could even begin to calculate what the result would be. A LOT of people would come.

Not as many as would want to come. The oceans are pretty formidable barriers. Some countries would also try and prevent their citizens from leaving. That still leaves Mexico and South as points of origin for a mass migration.

The real question is how many immigrants could the US (and Canada I suppose) could absorb. You don't want to just set up ghettos or border camps. I think you'd want to disperse them in communities big enough to offer support networks but small enough that the next generations feels obliged to assimilate. Though you'd have a self-sorting effect going based on the wealth available to the newcomers. I'm not sure a free-market approach would result in a good outcome, so there'd have to be heavy government involvement. That's not low risk.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #108 on: September 08, 2017, 12:31:15 PM »
The number is irrelevant, it could be less, or more. If the U.S. literally announced to the world "anyone who wants to come, just show up and you're in", I doubt you could even begin to calculate what the result would be. A LOT of people would come.

Not as many as would want to come.

We had that literal policy with respect to Cuba.  Even with a repressive government, an ocean barrier and an active at sea interdiction effort, today there are roughly 11 million Cubans in Cuba, and 1.7 million Cuban Americans, that's 15-20% of the "Cuban" population in the US.

Mexico alone is over ten times the size of Cuba, does not have a repressive government and shares a land border, if you consider the rest of the areas in South and Central America with less favorable opportunities and/or freedoms than the US  and that number could triple or even more and its very likely the 15-20% would be a low estimate for that population.  That's before you consider that much of Africa and parts of Asia are even worse off economically and government wise.

The impact on the countries in our region of that large of a translocation would be devasting.  The impact on the US would be devastating.  The impact on the environment in the US would be devasting.  Shanty towns springing up everywhere, any wildlife being eaten.  Huge increases in pollution.

With the environmental impact and the wage depression, it's hard for me to reconcile this as position that the Democrats should support.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #109 on: September 08, 2017, 02:13:57 PM »
That's why I picked the benchmark that I did. If we are absorbing one million per year now - then making them legal doesn't significantly change that impact. It does make it much more likely that they will be covered by labor laws, which reduces the depression on wages at American jobs.

The number has to be limited for proper processing alone. But if people had to only wait one or even three years to get in, then they probably wouldn't be as likely to make a dangerous crossing through the desert to live without any legal protections.

The doomsday scenario just isn't that realistic to me. This survey by Pew indicates only twice as many would migrate if it were legal than unauthorized.

I suspect the political concerns are more dramatic than any economic ones. Even with the lengthy citizenship process, there would eventually be a bubble of voters that would change politics especially on a state level. Another impact would be cultural, though for any North Americans this would not be dramatic - especially since it has already happened.

Quote
If Americans should have no advantage then why not spend taxpayer money on supporting jobs in India? Why bother to spend on American infrastructure or jobs? I think you're missing a fundamental premise of what government literally is when you say that Americans should have no advantage. If you believe in free markets then you're even further off the mark than you may realize. Free people who can self-organize through free association will find ways to organize in such a way as to establish an advantage, and superiority if they can achieve that. Their system will be designed to advantage themselves, naturally. If government is anything other than the culmination of a system of advantage for a united people then it is a failure. By saying you think Americans shouldn't have an advantage what you're actually saying is that you believe they should be bebarred from establishing advantageous conditions for themselves. You're arguing against the right to free association and making decisions that benefit the group. Any time you say that government should be used to enforce the lack of advantage of the people represented by that government you're basically saying it should cease to represent them and become a tyranny (whether benevolent or not)

I'm saying that the government shouldn't try to create jobs in India or America. It should try to build infrastructure to support commerce and quality of life. For instance, we should have national initiatives in building transportation and communication. But if SK Telecom or Lufthansa can do it better, yeah, our taxes should pay foreign companies to build it.

Your idea sounds less like a free market of individuals, as an Objectivist sees the natural state of affairs, than it sounds like an oligarchy or cabal or labor union. How can we get ourselves a monopoly, or throw up barriers against anybody who would challenge us? That's a Capitalist view of free markets, for sure. Except when China does it through their currency, or a country dumps commodities on the global market. Then the so called free market capitalists screech like a bobcat in a bathtub.

Quote
Maybe because the states never entered into such an agreement with the rest of the world?

I'm suggesting that they should, and for the same reasons.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #110 on: September 08, 2017, 02:33:01 PM »
Your idea sounds less like a free market of individuals, as an Objectivist sees the natural state of affairs, than it sounds like an oligarchy or cabal or labor union.

It's not 'my idea', it's a description of what is. That simply is what people will do, all things being equal, and if they are free to do so then they will. Because of her tone it may be difficult to realize how much of an idealist Rand was, and how little she understood human nature (i.e. economics). What she saw in her corporate commune was effectively a utopia of philosophers who shared some kind of prophetic view of truth and function. In the real world people disagree about both, and will always form coalitions against being demolished by competitors. And they will demolish you if you don't hold your own. If people are really free then they're free to screw each other over and seek advantage over their adversaries. A totally free market economy not only includes this feature, it's defined by it. Why be surprised that I should suggest people who do so to their maximum benefit?

If what I described sounds like an oligarchy that's only because you're thinking of the majority being ruled by the minority only for the benefit of the minority. A far-reaching association (i.e. government) doesn't have to be like that, even though it's verging towards that now. The fact of setting up equitable conditions among the members (i.e. citizens) doesn't imply they have no desire as a group to thrive over and above other people. When one speaks of sacrificing local prosperity in order to create jobs in another country you're basically talking about stabbing your own constituents in the back. I asked as a premise what you'd advocate if it was 100% proven that taking in lots of people would ruin your own country, but it seems you are stuck on your premise that this just can't happen. It's a circular argument to say we should do the good thing that will have a good result, because it's good. What if the result isn't good?

Quote
I'm suggesting that they should, and for the same reasons.

Mutual defence against foreign powers? When the aliens come that may well happen.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #111 on: September 08, 2017, 02:51:42 PM »
Quote
The losses boggle the imagination. According to economists’ standard estimates, letting anyone take a job anywhere would roughly double global production – a bigger gain than any other economic reform known to man. This isn’t trickle-down economics; it’s Niagara Falls economics.

Now, yeah, that's going to probably mean that the least skilled and least motivated American workers are going to make less money. And the most skilled and most motivated non-Americans are going to make significantly more money. Now, why is that bad?

It is true I am making a value judgement.

What about my ability to freely associate with Mexicans and form my own group to screw people over? It is rather arbitrary that I'm being forced into an exclusive coalition based on the geography of where my job and home are.

Accepting your premise of 100% proof that it would "ruin" my country (whatever that might mean) is a silly story. Nope, I wouldn't "ruin" my country. But I might allow it to change in other ways that other people would consider ruin.

I'd watch salary drop 20% for native-born Americans, if it meant lifting a billion people out of poverty. But I don't think it comes to that. Plus, I would include the new arrivals into my pool of Americans for the purposes of deciding what benefits my country. That's why I advocate for immigration, because I believe the alternative is that India and China (among others) keep their smartest and most motivated people as well as gaining more from other countries, gain steam for their association and cause ruin for our association.

If it was 100% proven that reducing immigration would ruin your own country, what would you advocate?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #112 on: September 08, 2017, 03:18:22 PM »
What about my ability to freely associate with Mexicans and form my own group to screw people over? It is rather arbitrary that I'm being forced into an exclusive coalition based on the geography of where my job and home are.

You're contesting the idea that people will tend to want to form territorial coalitions? Maybe that will stop some day, but it will be over the protests of human nature. In other words, the benefits would have to be substantial enough to overcome the innate feeling of security one feels when in a 'safe place' of one's fellow group members, if want to call them that. Rational or not, it's what will be the default. If you want to forego an alliance with people in your geographic proximity and make one with people in another country, basically go live there. You can do that right now in countries without tough immigration laws. You can say it's arbitrary all you want, I can also tell the bank it's arbitrary that they expect repayment of loans. It's the way it is.  I grok your idea of humanity first over and above national competition. As a Star Trek fan I have to give respect to that. But as it stands choosing a course that would knowingly harm your country in order to help another one is usually called treason, or something in that department. You really are stuck in a geographical alliance for the time being. Oh, you can form business associations across borders and even take actions to help others abroad and even knowingly do things that will harm your own country in the long term. Companies do that all the time; it's called greed. But that's different from actively and officially taking a position of "down with America, go one world government".

Quote
Accepting your premise of 100% proof that it would "ruin" my country (whatever that might mean) is a silly story. Nope, I wouldn't "ruin" my country. But I might allow it to change in other ways that other people would consider ruin.

Those 'other people' may well be your neighbors and friends. You would sacrifice what they want in exchange for what you want? Assuming for the moment that most people disagreed with you, but you had the power to do as you pleased, would you override them and carry out your plan, or would you defer to the majority notion of geographical supremacy and borders?

Quote
If it was 100% proven that reducing immigration would ruin your own country, what would you advocate?

I'm not anti-immigration. I'm also not really playing devil's advocate, but I am proposing arguments against open borders failure to enforce the law. I'm certainly not advocating reducing immigration from what it is now. I agree with a lot of what others have said on the boards before about how enforcement may have to start on the employer side rather than the illegal immigrant side. They won't come if they legitimately can't get under the table work. That's a tough task, but is probably easier than setting up a zero tolerance policy, ejecting people en masse, or building a wall. It would also level the playing field for young or poor Americans looking for work and undercut by illegal labor. Right now I think American immigration law is too tight and burdensome, but on the other hand there's an issue with globalism where companies either import workers directly or else export their facilities to use foreign workers. I also think the money aspect of immigration is hurting the country, where foreign investment drives up real estate and makes it very hard for Americans to live. So the whole system is suffering from various problems, none of which I think is solved by either ignoring the law or cracking down in force.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #113 on: September 08, 2017, 03:54:42 PM »
Quote
Those 'other people' may well be your neighbors and friends. You would sacrifice what they want in exchange for what you want? Assuming for the moment that most people disagreed with you, but you had the power to do as you pleased, would you override them and carry out your plan, or would you defer to the majority notion of geographical supremacy and borders?

Friends, neighbors, family. You probably already understand how an Objectivist answers that question. If my friend asks me to hire him and he's less qualified than the best alternative candidate, I don't hire him. If my cousin wants a loan, he's going to pay it back with interest or other consideration.

What I want is the only thing that matters. I have strong desires to have a rule of law, that overrule my desire for geographical autonomy, so I won't be smuggling anyone into the country or hiring anyone who is illegally present. I will lobby for that rule to be change, and I acknowledge that I prefer representative rule to anarchy.

Appreciate your explanation of your position as well.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #114 on: September 08, 2017, 03:59:57 PM »
All the empathetic arguments in the world don't fix the law.  Call your Congressperson and Senator and demand some action.  I agree, we should make every effort to permanently resolve the issue.

Agreed.  Fortunately, my Congresswoman and Senators already support my position and are ready for action.

Quote
However, the stories you're telling (and that's what they are) are no more likely to be valid than the stories I was telling.  You're making a massive assumption that it would be unfair to a particular person to deport them, without really evaluating it.

I'm glad to hear that you agree that our stories are about equally valid, and that you acknowledge the massive assumption that it would be fair to deport a particular person. :) 

Quote
I think inherent too, is a discrimination you feel with respect to the countries to which they would be deported.  I've never heard any outrage about deporting someone to Europe or China (and it does happen on occasion), but send someone to Mexico and people act like you've killed them and destroyed their lives, notwithstanding that children grow up there every day.

While I may personally feel better about deporting someone to a first-world country, it doesn't really touch my point--that a person who grew up in the U.S. considers it his or her "home," and deporting such a person is a more severe punishment than deporting someone who grew up in a foreign country.

I don't know why you think I liken it to being killed.  Although I can see it as pretty much devastating a life, much like it would devastate yours.

Quote
I also really really object to the soft accusations of racism that aren't provable.  If you can't distinguish between legitimate operations that result in the deportation of more people from Mexico and South America than from other places (when the ratio of illegal immigrants is heavily slanted in the same direction) and racist attacks on people of hispanic descent the failing is really on you.  Change the law, make it say what you want it say, but until then its a ridiculous point.

Once again, my objection really has nothing to do with a person's country of origin.  Although I did compare New York City to Mexico City, I could have just as easily compared it to Paris or Venice or St. Petersburg or Cape Town.  And I don't recall mentioning Hispanics specifically.  So where did you get the idea there was some "soft accusations of racism?"

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #115 on: September 19, 2017, 01:12:35 PM »
You'll also note that noted far left liberals John McCain and Jeff Flake, who are from this state and have seen first hand what he's done, have gone out of their way to say how bull shot this is.

My dream scenario is that someone like Jeff Flake challenges Trump for the 2020 nomination.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/jeff-flakes-gamble/534201/

Quote
(Flake was among a small handful of Republicans who formally admonished their colleague Joe Wilson for shouting “You lie!” at Obama during a presidential address to Congress.)

Quote
For Flake, one of the most jarring illustrations of Washington’s growing decency deficit came the night of the 2012 State of the Union address. He was seated next to Gabby Giffords, a friend and fellow member of Arizona’s congressional delegation. Giffords, a Democrat, had been shot in the head a year before and was still struggling to recover. Throughout the evening, Flake gently helped her up when she wanted to join the Democrats in a standing ovation—a gesture that meant he was often the only Republican on his feet during Obama’s applause lines. “I started getting texts and emails from people saying, ‘Why are you standing? Why are you standing?’ ”


Things only proceeded to get worse. Flake watched Trump’s various instigations on the campaign trail with growing alarm. “I mean, you watch those rallies, Republican rallies, the ‘Lock her up!’ chants, the depictions of Hillary Clinton, the posters that are just—” He sighed. “It’s beyond the pale.”

Plenty of Republicans criticized Flake for his refusal to fall in line behind Trump. But perhaps his gravest sin against the gods of partisanship was a tweet he sent after Clinton tapped Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate: “Trying to count the ways I hate @timkaine. Drawing a blank. Congrats to a good man and a good friend.”

Quote
“I grew up alongside migrant labor,” he told me, rattling off the names of Latino workers his family had befriended. “I could never look at them and see a criminal class.” In 2013, Flake was part of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” which helped pass a comprehensive immigration-reform bill in the Senate (it died in the House). He recalled for me his deep personal frustration watching Trump and his fellow Republicans make naked appeals to “nativist sentiment” last year. When Kaine traveled to Florida and in fluent Spanish praised the patriotism of newly naturalized citizens, “I almost cried,” Flake said. “I just thought, That should be us. That was us, and now it’s not.”

Quote
. Flake rushed to the side of the Louisiana congressman Steve Scalise, who lay soaked in blood, and helped apply pressure to his wound as they waited for medics to arrive. He then called Scalise’s wife, so that she wouldn’t find out about the shooting on TV.... Flake, for his part, barely had time to change out of his blood-spattered clothes before his conservative primary opponent’s campaign sent out an email denouncing his “America Last” policies and pledging that his “days in the Senate are numbered.” Flake’s aides spent the day monitoring the comments on his official Facebook page for hate speech and threats. “I hope the next guy has better aim,” read one deleted comment.

Quote
Cheryl marveled at how the climate had worsened since her husband first took office. “Up until, I’d say, this past year, I’ve never felt threatened or unsafe.” But as the political onslaught against Flake has intensified—from both sides—so too has her fear of their family getting caught in the crossfire. She no longer allows photos of their children to appear on campaign billboards or Flake’s public social-media accounts. Unruly public forums now make her skittish, and she has begun to worry about their home’s security. Earlier this year, a group of protesters staged a rowdy demonstration just outside their Mesa subdivision. “I’d never felt so grateful that I lived in a gated community,” she said. “And that’s not who I am.”
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 01:20:04 PM by Pete at Home »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #116 on: September 19, 2017, 01:36:59 PM »
All the empathetic arguments in the world don't fix the law.  Call your Congressperson and Senator and demand some action.  I agree, we should make every effort to permanently resolve the issue.

Agreed.  Fortunately, my Congresswoman and Senators already support my position and are ready for action.

So what do you make of the current story that effectively asserts working with Trump on a solution is less desirable than letting the whole thing fail to avoid normalizing him.  Has resistance for resistance's sake reached too far?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #117 on: September 19, 2017, 04:43:23 PM »
All the empathetic arguments in the world don't fix the law.  Call your Congressperson and Senator and demand some action.  I agree, we should make every effort to permanently resolve the issue.

Agreed.  Fortunately, my Congresswoman and Senators already support my position and are ready for action.

So what do you make of the current story that effectively asserts working with Trump on a solution is less desirable than letting the whole thing fail to avoid normalizing him.  Has resistance for resistance's sake reached too far?

I think it is a stupid idea from the far-left faction of the party that, like the Republicans have been for the last couple of decades, want victory over governance.  >:(  You don't sacrifice people for politics.  If we can find a solution that won't overly-punish Dreamers, I have no problem working with anyone.

Besides, working with Trump has already had a desired affect.  Even Ann Coulter is calling for his impeachment now. :D

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #118 on: November 18, 2019, 02:10:02 PM »
And the pardoning pen gets a workout again.

Quote
President Donald Trump on Friday granted clemency to three controversial military figures embroiled in charges of war crimes, arguing the moves will give troops “the confidence to fight” without worrying about potential legal overreach.

Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, convicted of second degree murder in the death of three Afghans, was given a full pardon from president for the crimes. Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced murder charges next year for a similar crime, was also given a full pardon for those alleged offenses.

Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward Gallagher, who earlier this fall was acquitted of a string of alleged war crimes, had his rank restored to Chief Petty Officer by the president.


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #119 on: November 18, 2019, 04:17:01 PM »
What’s the problem with these three being pardoned?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2019, 04:46:32 PM »
Hard to say.  We're fuzzy on the whole, "international law" thing anyway.  Does this do "harm" in that regard or just confirm things?  Sending the message to our troops that when in the field the law will sometimes look the other way, may smooth things over when it comes to questionable orders or the will to perform dangerous assignments where mistakes are more likely.  The negative aspect is... well the same as the 'benefit'. 

I think as a rule it's a good idea to have a system which can convict in these situations.  Even if they are pardoned...  In some ways it lends gravity to the situation without signaling to the rest of the world we don't give a *censored* about their opinion / victims.  Or, at least makes a scapegoat / villain out of the president, who, is the leader of said military anyway. 

I think on the whole it is a bad idea, but I lean a little bit towards the dirty globalist side of things.  :P   When I'm not being a tin-foil-hat-wearing isolationist anyhow...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2019, 04:49:29 PM »
Do you even know what they were convicted of or the process failure was involved?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2019, 05:33:13 PM »
I didn't make a judgement of any kind about these three. I'm kind of neutral about it, and there isn't much information to form an opinion.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #123 on: November 19, 2019, 12:17:55 PM »
I dont know about the other two, but I followed the Gallagher trial at the time.  All of the evidence was for him killing the prisoner to keep him out of the hands of the 3rd faction that was overrunning their position.  Questionable, but I could uderstand the reasoning.
During the trial, the team medic, who had previously (not under oath) reported that the kid was alive befor Gallagher stabbed him, changed his testimony.  After receiving a promise of no prosecution in exchange for testifying, the medic suddenly claimed that HE was the one who killed him, and that Gallagher stabbed a corpse.  A bit convenient, but possible.

If I recall correctly, Galagher was convicted of desecrating a corpse by posing with the dead body and claiming to have 'bagged one' or something like that.  Nobody disputed that.  So what irregularity turns unbecoming conduct into business as usual?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #124 on: January 07, 2020, 02:24:08 PM »
Any bets on whether Flynn gets a pardon soon?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #125 on: January 07, 2020, 02:59:49 PM »
I dont know about the other two, but I followed the Gallagher trial at the time.  All of the evidence was for him killing the prisoner to keep him out of the hands of the 3rd faction that was overrunning their position.  Questionable, but I could uderstand the reasoning.
During the trial, the team medic, who had previously (not under oath) reported that the kid was alive befor Gallagher stabbed him, changed his testimony.  After receiving a promise of no prosecution in exchange for testifying, the medic suddenly claimed that HE was the one who killed him, and that Gallagher stabbed a corpse.  A bit convenient, but possible.

If I recall correctly, Galagher was convicted of desecrating a corpse by posing with the dead body and claiming to have 'bagged one' or something like that.  Nobody disputed that.  So what irregularity turns unbecoming conduct into business as usual?

I appreciate the update and information.  I don't think there's much risk of expectation of a presidential pardon after 3 years turning into a "business as usual" practice.

I don't see this pardon as a notice that Gallagher was justified.  Looks more to me as the excuse of temporary insanity due to circumstances that could break a nearly reasonable person.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2020, 03:01:50 PM by Pete at Home »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #126 on: May 07, 2020, 02:54:27 PM »
Any bets on whether Flynn gets a pardon soon?

Apparently, he won't need one.

Quote
The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI’s Russia investigation.

The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview. Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press.

Pretty much a total exoneration of Flynn.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #127 on: May 07, 2020, 05:24:17 PM »
Any bets on whether Flynn gets a pardon soon?

Apparently, he won't need one.

Quote
The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI’s Russia investigation.

The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview. Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press.

Pretty much a total exoneration of Flynn.

Or like many now appear to be doing in the Trump administration looking to please the boss. I have no proof but wont be surprise by what history digs up

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #128 on: May 07, 2020, 05:36:34 PM »
I'm adding this link, because it includes the government's actual filing.  https://thehill.com/regulation/496649-read-doj-motion-to-dismiss-flynn-case

Pretty clear that it was an abuse of government authority.  Hangs mostly on the point that the lies must be material to an investigation point, which they were not in fact.  But also flatly says that they could not proof there was any knowing lie in the transcript, and that the "lies" consisted of statements that he didn't remember saying something, or that it may have been discussed but he didn't recall, and now the DOJ disclosure stated as fact that the FBI agents didn't believe he intended to lie, this is really egregious.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #129 on: May 07, 2020, 05:38:47 PM »
I don't think "total exoneration" means what you think it means. If prosecutors dismissing a case means that you are totally exonerated, then Clinton was too - along with Jesse Smollett.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #130 on: May 07, 2020, 05:42:42 PM »
You should read it then.  They moved to Dismiss with Prejudice.  They walked through why there never was any case and why it never should have been brought.  It is exoneration they are recommending.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #131 on: May 07, 2020, 06:02:25 PM »
The DOJ dropping charges at the orders of Trump's personal attorney William Barr is no more of an exoneration than the Republican senate acquitting Trump on the articles of impeachment.

A purely political process has nothing to do with guilt or innocence (or "exoneration")

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #132 on: May 07, 2020, 06:21:45 PM »
I don't think "total exoneration" means what you think it means. If prosecutors dismissing a case means that you are totally exonerated, then Clinton was too - along with Jesse Smollett.

What crime did the FBI charge Hillary with?


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #133 on: May 07, 2020, 06:53:41 PM »
I don't think "total exoneration" means what you think it means. If prosecutors dismissing a case means that you are totally exonerated, then Clinton was too - along with Jesse Smollett.

What crime did the FBI charge Hillary with?

Quibbling. Not charging somebody is pretty much the same as dropping the case.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #134 on: May 08, 2020, 09:59:25 AM »
The DOJ dropping charges at the orders of Trump's personal attorney William Barr is no more of an exoneration than the Republican senate acquitting Trump on the articles of impeachment.

A purely political process has nothing to do with guilt or innocence (or "exoneration")

Are you working for MSNBC now?  The entire record shows the charging was a political process, not the exoneration.  There was no case at the time of the interview.  Read the stupid thing.  It's absolutely clear this should never have been charged.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #135 on: May 08, 2020, 11:23:08 AM »
The DOJ dropping charges at the orders of Trump's personal attorney William Barr is no more of an exoneration than the Republican senate acquitting Trump on the articles of impeachment.

A purely political process has nothing to do with guilt or innocence (or "exoneration")

Are you working for MSNBC now?  The entire record shows the charging was a political process, not the exoneration.  There was no case at the time of the interview.  Read the stupid thing.  It's absolutely clear this should never have been charged.

The only thing I know that's "absolutely clear" is that this has become a political football. With democratic lawyers crying foul and republican lawyers saying justice was served.

What I know is clear is that Flynn willfully lied to the FBI about the subject of his discussion with the Russian ambassador. I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of federal law and actions to know if the interview and prosecution was standard or trumped up.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #136 on: May 08, 2020, 11:40:55 AM »
Are you working for MSNBC now?  The entire record shows the charging was a political process, not the exoneration.  There was no case at the time of the interview.  Read the stupid thing.  It's absolutely clear this should never have been charged.
Yes, I am aware that your partisan blinders are strong.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #137 on: May 08, 2020, 01:19:01 PM »
The only thing I know that's "absolutely clear" is that this has become a political football. With democratic lawyers crying foul and republican lawyers saying justice was served.

I linked to the filing, read it yourself.  It's neither that long or too complex.  The FBI's original basis to open a counter terrorism investigation of Flynn was predicated on the following: 

  • Flynn was  an adviser to candidate Trump for foreign policy issues
  • News paper accounts said that Flynn had met with/had ties to state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation - by which they mean he gave speeches in Russia
  • Newspaper accounts that Flynn traveled to Russia in December 2015
  • Flynn had an active TS/SCI clearance.”

That's it.  No evidence of anything untoward.  He was a foreign policy advisor to Trump, and according to newspaper accounts had both traveled to Russia in the last year and been paid to speak by organizations that were "affiliated" with the Russian government (by the way, Bill Clinton fit all those characteristics as well).

With that flimsy basis, which includes not even a hint of an issue, upon which they opened an investigation of a adviser to a Presidential campaign of the rival party.  Do you agree that it would be properly predicated to open up a counter terrorism investigation on Biden in such circumstances?

So after they opened the investigation - really without a basis - and reviewed everything the government held on Flynn in detail, including wire tapping him without probable cause the FBI concluded in early December that there was no negative information on Flynn and the case should be closed.  In early December.  By a lucky coincidence, the FBI prepared the case closing but forgot to sign it.

In January, despite having the record of the call, which they have never claimed showed any issues that changed the concern on the counter terrorism issue - ie it doesn't show that Flynn was an agent of Russia, they decided they wanted to "follow up" on that issue.  There is no crime in the call.  it could not be an independent basis of investigation.  It was not legally sufficient to open a case as it was neither criminal nor counter-terrorism related.  They concluded that themselves, but that's when they discovered they didn't sign the case closing and decided to leave it open - even though again this did not implicate the counter terrorism case.

Counter terrorism activities by the FBI are controlled by and at the direction of the White House, they are not independent functions like investigations of crimes.  The FBI spoke to the DOJ about this issue and the DOJ told them they had to communicate their investigations to the TRUMP White House.  This was done repeatedly, including AAG Yates calling the FBI on the very morning they were arranging this meeting in the White House with Flynn.  Comey's team deliberately chose to not take or return the calls to the AAG because they knew they were not following the expressed position of the DOJ and expected they would be told this was illegitimate.  They returned the calls only after they had the agents in the meeting.

Quote
What I know is clear is that Flynn willfully lied to the FBI about the subject of his discussion with the Russian ambassador.

Do you?  The transcripts of the call have never been released.  There is no transcript of the FBI meeting, we only have limited records written by Peter Strook and the other FBI agent who's been involved in all these political investigations.  We know the record was rewritten by Strook (he said as much in his texts), and the actual records say that Flynn knew the calls were recorded and in the FBI's possession.

Here's what it says about what those two agents thought at the time:  "Both of the agents 'had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.'" 

Given that the sole evidence of any lie is what those 2 agents concluded, I'm not seeing how you get your certainty.

Even when you look at what it seems the lies were, they were things like this:

Quote
According to the FBI agents’ recollections, when asked if Mr. Flynn recalled any conversation in which he encouraged Kislyak not to “escalate the situation” in its response to American sanctions, Mr. Flynn responded uncertainly, stating, “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything."'

That question is a double problem.  First, it clearly indicates an imperfect memory, which even if you think was some kind of deception, you'd be arguing that the agents themselves were wrong to conclude that it wasn't.  But second, that are zero to do with the counter-terrorism basis upon which the meeting was based.  It's tied to the Logan Act, which hasn't had a prosecution since I think 1802, has never had a successful prosecution, and if you're being honest has been violated millions of times without any interest by anyone.  I mean quite literally, John Kerry's interactions with Iran when Trump was revoking the Iran "treaty" were a direct violation of the Logan Act and no one seriously suggests prosecution.  Heck, I saw it reminded that Reagan negotiated for the release of the Iranian hostages on his way into office with release coordinated with his inaugeratoin. 

Moreover, at the time of the call Flynn was a member of the incoming Presidential Administration and had actual authority to engage in those calls and express Trump's positions to foreign leaders.  The FBI knew this too, and they knew the Logan Act was a false pretense.

Quote
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of federal law and actions to know if the interview and prosecution was standard or trumped up.

It had no legal basis.  There was no crime being investigated.  There was no counter terrorism concern that had not been exhaustively determined not to be real.  It was done in violation of White House, DOJ and FBI protocols.  It was done despite the FBI knowing that the DOJ viewed the FBI as required to inform the WhiteHouse in advance, and it was deliberately done to prevent the DOJ from exercising required oversight. 

It was literally done to create a crime, not to investigate one.  This is not intricate.  You can't pretend not to understand federal law and therefore to have no opinion.  Our government is not permitted to investigate people to create crimes.

I can forgive not getting some of the technical aspects, like not following the discussion over whether the "lies" are material to an investigation, which these were not.  But to put it simply, lying about an affair you've had in an FBI interview on an accounting issue to which your affair has no relevance is also not prosecutable as a crime under the federal statute.  Lying about a legal conversation with Kislak that is not material to the counter-terrorism investigation would not be a crime either, and there's a real question about intent to lie.

That's before you consider whether he was blackmailed through threats to his son, after he'd already been bankrupted, and whether his lawyers were conflicted in the advice they gave him, all of which are independent basis to dispute the veracity of the guilty plea.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #138 on: May 08, 2020, 04:48:23 PM »
Wouldn't "total exoneration" mean that there were nothing to the charges?  That he wasn't actually guilty of the crimes he plead guilty to?  That he didn't actually lie to the FBI?

Because as someone reminded me recently, he was fired by Trump at the time because he lied to Vice President Pence.

So unless you believe Trump and his Administration are a bunch of total loons who didn't realize that Flint didn't lie to them, but was telling everyone the truth all this time, then I think "total exoneration" is off the table. :)

This looks more like Trump asking his lap dog Burr to pardon Flint for him, so as to send a message to every other person in the government that, if you go against Trump, you will be punished, but if you support him, nothing bad will ultimate happen to you.  Which is one of the best ways to corrupt a government and a society, since it doesn't leave a paper trail.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #139 on: May 08, 2020, 05:02:19 PM »
This looks more like Trump asking his lap dog Burr to pardon Flint for him, so as to send a message to every other person in the government that, if you go against Trump, you will be punished, but if you support him, nothing bad will ultimate happen to you.  Which is one of the best ways to corrupt a government and a society, since it doesn't leave a paper trail.

Uh, if Barr was acting as "his lapdog" on this, there would have been a recommendation to drop charges and no justification given. Kind of like what happened with regards the Clinton E-mails where the Obama DOJ made it clear they had no intention to prosecute, despite evidence existing to support the case.

Instead, in this case, unlike with Hillary, you have a veritable list of reasons why they feel the charges should be dropped.

Unless you've found a new purpose in life and are now going to be consistent on things and declare Hillary should be prosecuted for the mishandling of Classified e-mails? There is currently a stronger case against her on THAT than there is on this one.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #140 on: May 08, 2020, 05:20:01 PM »
Quote
Uh, if Barr was acting as "his lapdog" on this, there would have been a recommendation to drop charges and no justification given

That implies a lapdog has to be stupid. Look at me i'm going to recommend drop the charges for no reason.

Their could be a middle ground here. That their was something wrong with what Flynn did enough that he plead guilty but after further investigation not worth the trouble anymore.

Its not like we care about perjury everyone lies, they shouldn't be prosecuted for it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #141 on: May 09, 2020, 04:59:19 AM »
This looks more like Trump asking his lap dog Burr to pardon Flint for him, so as to send a message to every other person in the government that, if you go against Trump, you will be punished, but if you support him, nothing bad will ultimate happen to you.  Which is one of the best ways to corrupt a government and a society, since it doesn't leave a paper trail.

You need to be SUPER careful about having double standards here. In Hillary's situation, Comey's announcement that 'no reasonable person would pursue charges' was met by the left with "proof she did nothing wrong", even though our source for knowing she did do something wrong wasn't Comey but rather direct leaks and media announcements of facts. His statement did not negate the knowledge we already had, it just informed us what the FBI was going to do about it. In the case we're discussing here, despite presumably scoffing at Republicans who "knew" Hillary was guilty regardless of what Comey said, Democrats here now "know" that Flynn was obviously guilty and that this is a coverup. This is regardless of the fact that our only information about the lying came from the FBI, who are the same organization now saying it wasn't a valid accusation against him. So unless I'm mistaken the only source we had is recanting, meaning there is no source validating the theory that "it is clear he lied and is guilty". Again, this isn't whataboutism: the two cases are completely different, but don't you find it strange that it's "obvious" that this is a coverup while it was equally "obvious" that Hillary was being unfairly targeted and acted perfectly properly? I cannot conceive of a scenario where these two viewpoints are concordant with each other, without there being a double standard so significant that it's equivalent to "no force on Earth could cause me to doubt my side and believe the other side." It seems to me that on some of these topics if literal Jehovah came down from Mount Sinai and said it was so, it would be met with accusations that he's partisan and probably on the take.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2020, 01:18:58 PM »
Quote
Comey's announcement that 'no reasonable person would pursue charges' was met by the left with "proof she did nothing wrong", even though our source for knowing she did do something wrong wasn't Comey but rather direct leaks and media

You also need to be careful, comey, the media, and Hillary supporters all agreed she did something wrong, just not illegal or able to be prosecuted. Everyone agreed having the server was wrong.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2020, 01:52:55 PM »
Quote
Comey's announcement that 'no reasonable person would pursue charges' was met by the left with "proof she did nothing wrong", even though our source for knowing she did do something wrong wasn't Comey but rather direct leaks and media

You also need to be careful, comey, the media, and Hillary supporters all agreed she did something wrong, just not illegal or able to be prosecuted. Everyone agreed having the server was wrong.

Uh no, what she did was not only wrong, it was clearly illegal to anyone who has any experience handling classified information. (Which isn't most of the population)

What they(and by that, you mean Democrats) "agreed to" was that it didn't rise to a level to warrant prosecution.

Now in the case with Flynn, there is a legitimate question as to whether or not what he did was even illegal. While mishandling classified information is always illegal, unless you're the PotUS. Because PotUS is the head of the organizations that determine if something is classified.

Hillary wasn't PotUS at the time however.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2020, 02:55:08 PM »
You can say all of that and it has nothing to do with what I was refuting. A statement was made about her doing nothing wrong

What bugs me is that people can't even admit Flynn did anything wrong undermining foreign policy by the Obama administration.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2020, 09:47:29 PM »
You can say all of that and it has nothing to do with what I was refuting. A statement was made about her doing nothing wrong

What bugs me is that people can't even admit Flynn did anything wrong undermining foreign policy by the Obama administration.

The Obama Admin was a lame duck, if anybody has grounds to complain, it would be the incoming Trump Admin about the outgoing Obama Administration trying to undermine the policy objectives of the next administration. In this case, it's a "legal oversight" both in statutory law and constitutional law that this hasn't been specifically addressed in the past. Of course, historically the tradition has been for such action to be unnecessary as the outgoing admin typically cooperates with the incoming. Except this time.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2020, 09:52:02 PM »
...comey, the media, and Hillary supporters all agreed she did something wrong, just not illegal or able to be prosecuted. Everyone agreed having the server was wrong.

However; the case law states that doing wrong, in this case, is illegal and intention cannot be used as a defense. Doing what she did is a criminal offense with specified penalties demanded by law.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2020, 10:10:33 PM »
...comey, the media, and Hillary supporters all agreed she did something wrong, just not illegal or able to be prosecuted. Everyone agreed having the server was wrong.

However; the case law states that doing wrong, in this case, is illegal and intention cannot be used as a defense. Doing what she did is a criminal offense with specified penalties demanded by law.

The other thing that amazes me in this respect is that they can hand-wave the Security violations, and additionally, they don't seem to give a damn about that also having been an end run around both the FOIA and the National Archives as well.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #148 on: May 11, 2020, 10:37:57 AM »
You need to be SUPER careful about having double standards here. In Hillary's situation, Comey's announcement that 'no reasonable person would pursue charges' was met by the left with "proof she did nothing wrong", even though our source for knowing she did do something wrong wasn't Comey but rather direct leaks and media announcements of facts.

I always find it interesting that those who do believe it was an exoneration of Hillary ignore Lisa Page's testimony under oath that the DOJ told the FBI ahead of time that notwithstanding the statute they would not prosecute gross negligence against Hillary, only intentional acts (which by the way they could have charged intent based on the deliberate act of creating the server).  They claimed that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with their case history.

Compare that "zealous" prosecution, with resurrecting the Logan Act, which the DOJ has never charged anyone with violating in the entire history of the DOJ, the US has apparently only tried to prosecute it twice and both times were over 200 years ago and losers.  An act that is widely regarded as a dead law, yet Lisa Page (and who knows who else) researched real time during Flynn and wrote a memo about how it could be used (without asking the DOJ - cause they knew what they'd say).  It wasn't innocent, they not leaked details on Flynn's call (which is an actual felony punishable by up to 10 years), they also leaked information about the Logan Act - which is why that appeared in press accounts and even on tv at the time, to try and put it back into the public knowledge and make it look less out of left field when they used it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: pardon me
« Reply #149 on: May 11, 2020, 04:17:39 PM »
...Lisa Page's testimony under oath that the DOJ told the FBI ahead of time that notwithstanding the statute they would not prosecute gross negligence against Hillary, only intentional acts (which by the way they could have charged intent based on the deliberate act of creating the server).

When that statement was first aired, the law code was also aired next to it, specifying that intention was not relevant. That submariner who was given prison time for taking personal photos of his area inside his sub did nothing intentionally wrong, yet, the DOJ did not lend him any grace. You violate the letter of the law, you must pay the price!