D13The Colonel vs. Mathius

Let the debate begin!   Enjoy!

debate

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. Yes…he won…..I quit……..heh heh heh. First topic coming tonight….had to listen to Clinton’s economic plan….then put the pencil to it….then go throw up for awhile…..fashioning my first topic.

    Really…hats on raptors?

  3. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Is early balloting allowed to vote the winner in this debate?

  4. Rule of Law…….sometime ago, there was a brief discussion on selective prosecution and the rule of law. It did not go very far because there were really no answers. So, I would like to address the apparent leftist viewpoint of selective prosecution and the rule of Law. That is not to say that there are those on the right that like the idea of selective prosecution. The issue with me is that the law is the law. It is not to be interpreted as “enforcement at will”. Because of selective prosecution, you are beginning to see the degradation of law and order across the country. Allow me to pick a couple of items concerning the rule of law.
    Let’s start with immigration. That is near and dear to me because I see the nasty and bad side of it. You, on the other hand, do not. If I am not mistaken, you observe the same thought that boundaries are imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper and that mankind has a right to go wherever they want and do whatever they want to do. That is a nice thought but there is a law on our books about how to become a legal immigrant. And any one coming across the border is ILLEGAL. There is no gray area to be brought up…..it is illegal. And the people coming across the border have committed a crime. (an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.) They are, therefore criminals. To not enforce the law through the use of selective enforcement is the same as having no law at all. IT MATTERS NOT THE INTENT. If they are political refugees, there is a procedure and law in place. Follow it. It matters not if they are women and children and pose NO THREAT to anyone…..there is a law in place.
    Now, let us move to the Presidential race. Why is Hillary Clinton given a pass on emails, to name just one? ( I can talk intelligently about this because I am intimately familiar with Security Clearances and the law. I know them all verbatim and can quote them because I was/am subject to those very laws to this very day. ) She violated several Federal laws, not just memorandums or rules, but the Justice Department has selectively decided not to prosecute. You can argue that the FBI suggested that no case be filed but the FBI does not have that jurisdiction. It is the Justice Department. In addition, she violated law in both an administrative position and a military position, even though she is not in the military. Do you feel that there is a double standard to the law in this case? If not why? Are you going to base your opinion on a Justice Department decision not to enforce the law on the mere fact that they say there is no violation? ( To which they have not said that there is no violation, just that they decided to adopt the predetermined position of the FBI ).
    Now, we turn to The Donald. People are upset that he used the law to further his position in business. Note that he “used” the law. It was there on the books and he used it according to the laws on the books and is deemed immoral for it. Why?
    So, my question is this. Does selective enforcement of the law, any law, erode and negate the rule of law that we deem we live by? A Nation of Laws?

    • I would like to address the apparent leftist viewpoint of selective prosecution and the rule of Law.
      Objection: I have no idea what you mean by lefist.

      The issue with me is that the law is the law.
      This is tautologically true.

      It is not to be interpreted as “enforcement at will”.
      First, periods go inside the quotation marks. 😉

      Second of all, this is false. Legal enforcement in the United States has always had a discretionary component. From the cop who pulls you over and lets you off with a warning, to the investigators who recommend or don’t recommend charges to the DA who prosecutes or doesn’t to the judge who offers leniency or doesn’t, to the jury who nullifies.

      Third, this is something I’ve spoken against before which it that, if we are all criminals (which we are), then the only question is when, if, and why we might be charged. I am strongly adverse to this state of affairs. This, however, does not seem to be the thrust of your point, so I’ll leave this alone for now.

      Because of selective prosecution, you are beginning to see the degradation of law and order across the country.

      If I am not mistaken, you observe the same thought that boundaries are imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper and that mankind has a right to go wherever they want and do whatever they want to do.
      Correct.

      Caveats: this is not the “typical” liberal standpoint and stems from my more extreme libertarian tendencies. Further, I believe that a population has a right to know who enters (eg sign in at The Wall). Further, I believe that a population has a right to reject known threats and/or those who are willfully harmful within reason. Note that this test is “I know you are a harmful” not “I can’t prove you are safe.” To fully flesh this out would take a thread all its own, but this should serve as a decent top level summary of my position.

      And any one coming across the border is ILLEGAL.
      Objection! A person cannot be “illegal.” A person can do something illegally. A person can be a criminal. A person cannot, themselves, be illegal. I do not accept your terminology on this point.

      There is no gray area to be brought up…..it is illegal. And the people coming across the border have committed a crime.
      Tsk tsk tsk. There’s always gray area. We liberals love our gray area.

      A crime requires something called criminal intent known as mens rea. Imagine a toddler who chases a ball across a border. She did not commit a crime. Period. Full stop.

      This does not mean we do not have the legal right to deport her, nor does it mean that she cannot later become complicit-after-the-fact. But your assertion is too simple, and this is a distinction I suspect will become important later on.

      To not enforce the law through the use of selective enforcement is the same as having no law at all.
      Nonsense.

      It means that they are criminals who got away with it. Regardless of whether they’re caught or not, whether they’re charged or not, whether they’re convicted or not, punished or not, they are still criminals who committed a crime.

      To say otherwise is tantamount to saying that we don’t have laws against murder because we don’t catch and convict all murderers.

      IT MATTERS NOT THE INTENT.
      Sure it does. See above re mens rea.

      If they are political refugees, there is a procedure and law in place. Follow it.
      There is a beautiful little legal adage: quod est necessarium est licitum.

      That which is necessary is legal.

      That’s why you can run a red light when rushing to the hospital. It’s why you can shoot an intruder. It’s why there might be some question about people fleeing persecution.

      Now, I’m not 100% confident in how this might apply, you’d have to consult a lawyer. But you’re asserting far more confidence here than I would feel comfortable accepting.

      It matters not if they are women and children and pose NO THREAT to anyone…..there is a law in place.
      Sure, men and women are the same.

      Children.. well, see above re mens rea.

      ::as a busy elitist, I will break here for now::

    • Now, let us move to the Presidential race.
      And on to the main course.

      Why is Hillary Clinton given a pass on emails, to name just one?
      Up front, let me acknowledge that I am not, nor do I pretend to be, an expert on classified data handling nor exactly whatever it is that Clinton did or did not do.

      That said, what I do know is that the FBI indicated that she was careless, but did not recommend charges.

      The reasons – to my understanding – that they did not recommend charges are two-fold: (A) they did not have enough proof of deliberate malfeasance, and (B) as a criminal statute, the mishandling of classified data has never previously been applied where no mal-intent was present. That is – again, to my understanding – that she did the wrong thing – but they can’t prove she did it knowing it was wrong or that she did it for a malicious reason.

      Again, please feel free to correct me here, but no conspiracy theories, Tex! I want them facts.

    • She violated several Federal laws, not just memorandums or rules, but the Justice Department has selectively decided not to prosecute.

      See above regarding mens rea.

      My understanding, again, is that there’s no criminal intent, ergo no crime. That’s not to say it’s not wrong, you can’t be punished, or that she shouldn’t be stripped of her clearance, etc. Just that it’s not a CRIME.

      You can argue that the FBI suggested that no case be filed but the FBI does not have that jurisdiction. It is the Justice Department.

      They don’t? Then why were they investigating it in the first place? Irrellevant, but I’m curious.

      In addition, she violated law in both an administrative position and a military position, even though she is not in the military.
      Objection! “violated the law” is a finding of fact as found by a jury of your peers. It is not something you, D13, get to declare unilaterally based on your opinions outside of a court of law.

      Do you feel that there is a double standard to the law in this case? If not why?

      I feel that she was maliciously targeted by a a “vast right wing conspiracy” intent on harming her Presidential ambitions. Whatever she may or may not have done, she was agressively targetted and pursued far more than an ordinary desk jockey like yourself would have been. Had you done this (as a civvy), you would have been unceremoniously fired – a check would have been done to see if you were doing it to steal or leak data – and having found nothing, you might get a slap on the wrist (again, as a civvy). They came after Clinton for a political witch hunt. Maybe she is guilty. Maybe not. But the double standard I see here is the aggression with which she was pursued.

      And, having been investigated by a REPUBLICAN APPOINTED director of the FBI and subsequently recommended not to be charged, people such as yourself, still declare her guilty by fiat.

      Meanwhile, having never been charged with a crime, let alone convicted, Mr. Trump is promising that, as President, he will lock her up.

      Now, it’s not all persecuition and frowney faces for Mrs. Clinton. She deserves some significant rebuke for her actions. I don’t want to make light of it. But there is another of those little Latin phrases I like to throw around: Culpae poenae par esto. Let the punishment fit the crime.

      There is no evidence her actions caused the intended or unintended release of anything to anyone. There is no evidence of any harm whatsoever. There is no evidence of any mal-intent. So what, pray tell, is the punishment that should fit this “crime”?

      Are you going to base your opinion on a Justice Department decision not to enforce the law on the mere fact that they say there is no violation?

      Yes. That is their job. To decide if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been done and to recommend charges accordingly. Having opted against recommending charges, and they with far more legal expertise and knowledge of the actual salient facts, who am I to suggest otherwise? If I had some evidence that they were co-opted or that they, themselves, are biased, perhaps, but I have none of that.

      In fact, to my casual observance, it appears they went above and beyond to scrutinize every modicum of data possible, to question every possible witness and source. And this was done, again, under the auspices of a Republican appointee and before a Republican controlled committee in Congress.

      I can’t say there’s no “there” there. But I have no reason to believe that the system let her off the hook.

      ( To which they have not said that there is no violation, just that they decided to adopt the predetermined position of the FBI ).
      Objection: Predetermined, how? After the examination of monumental amounts of data and interviews with every possible witness including Mrs. Clinton, repeatedly?

      ——————

      I want to be clear. I personally believe that Mrs. Clinton, like all high level politicians is a slimy weasel and, most likely, a sociopath who gloms on to America’s needs in order to advance her own ambitions. I believe this is true of her, of Obama, (other) Clinton, Bushes I and II (and Jeb), Reagan, Carter, and Nixon. I believe it is true of Trump. I believe it is true of Kennedy. Insofar as any of these men (and women) have any sincere beliefs about the good of the nation, it necessarily takes a back seat to the good of their career, power, and ambitions.

      With that in mind. I believe Clinton (probably) knew exactly what she was doing and did it for convenience and because she (probably) didn’t trust the security of the State Department. It is possible she had something to hide, but I have no evidence to support or refute this stance. That said, I am not a judge, jury, or executioner and have no standing, nor all the salient facts, to pronounce her guilt – and neither do you.

      So, absent a conviction, let us conclude that she is a slimy weasel, but not a criminal.

      • Blackflag says:

        Clinton: re: Mens rea

        Sorry, Mathius, that doesn’t fly here. Negligence does NOT require Mens Rea; just because you don’t know what may happen, does not excuse negligence.

        You set off an explosion in an empty field, believing “who can get hurt?” and a rock flies into your neighbor’s house and injuries him. Your intention is irrelevant you had no plan to hurt him, but you did. You are NEGLIGENT.

        In the matter of state secrets and their handling, the statute clearly states “NEGLIGENCE” regardless of intent.

        She is guilty and the only reason she gets a pass is because she is politically powerful.
        You even did that once with one email, you’d be toast.

    • Now, we turn to The Donald.
      It’s only fair.

      People are upset that he used the law to further his position in business.
      I’m not.

      I’m upset the law allows him to operated in this manner.

      I’m upset that, even though legal, he operates in a slimy and immoral way just because he can get away with it. The phrase we might be looking for here is “high functioning sociopath.” I see a lot of them in my line of work.

      Note that he “used” the law. It was there on the books and he used it according to the laws on the books and is deemed immoral for it.
      Legal and moral are not the same thing.

      Lots of things are legal but immoral.
      Lots of things are immoral but legal.

      Refusing to pay contractors in order to position them to accept less money or fight a costly legal battle is perfectly legal. But it’s pretty damn scummy.

      • I’m upset that, even though legal, he operates in a slimy and immoral way just because he can get away with it. The phrase we might be looking for here is “high functioning sociopath.” I see a lot of them in my line of work.

        Why do you get to decide what is slimy and immoral? Where do you apply this litmus? Personal opinon? Again, my point is that when you and/or the media and/or myself render an opinion such as this…..does it not point the problem that I am trying to make? Neither you, nor I, get to make this distinction.

        But, even if you think it slimy and “high functioning sociopathic”, it is still legal. The Pope walking across the border is not legal. He is violating the law. Again, back to my question of selective enforcement and the degradation of a nation of laws……you see, it starts out as a policeman deciding not to write a ticket for crossing the center line….now it becomes deciding not to enforce the law in larger matters. What is seemingly insignificant, like the leak in the dam, it becomes a flood when you run out of fingers.

        • Why do you get to decide what is slimy and immoral?

          Because I am entitled to my personal opinion and, since it bears no legal weight, nor power of compulsion, nor ability to impose a jail sentence on him, my opinion is mine to do with as I like.

          Neither you, nor I, get to make this distinction.

          Sure we do.

          We don’t get to decide who is a criminal because that is for the courts to decide.

          But we absolutely get to decide who is a slimy and immoral weasel in our own minds.

          But, even if you think it slimy and “high functioning sociopathic”, it is still legal.

          YUP!

          The Pope walking across the border is not legal.

          YUP!

        • you see, it starts out as a policeman deciding not to write a ticket for crossing the center line….now it becomes deciding not to enforce the law in larger matters.

          OBJECTION! Slippery slope!

        • you see, it starts out as a policeman deciding not to write a ticket for crossing the center line….now it becomes deciding not to enforce the law in larger matters.

          You cannot enforce all the laws all the time. It is not possible. There aren’t enough cops to arrest everyone, DA’s to try everyone, judges or juries, or jails. And who would guard the jails once we’ve all locked ourselves up?

          The real problem isn’t the selective enforcement. That’s a necessary component of adding the “human touch” to a system where there are often extenuating circumstance that merit our compassion, forgiveness, and understanding. These are the higher angels of the human race and we should aspire to them, not blot them out under the guise of pure reason and blind enforcement.

          No, the real problem is that there are too many damned laws. That no one can possibly know them all. That things are illegal that shouldn’t. That things are legal that shouldn’t be. And that this means we are all at the mercy of those in power.

    • So, my question is this. Does selective enforcement of the law, any law, erode and negate the rule of law that we deem we live by? A Nation of Laws?

      I have a fundamental problem with selective enforcement of laws, but I am not seeing it how you are applying it here.

      Selective enforcement is how the rich get slaps on the wrist where the poor get jail sentences.

      They say that justice is blind, but it most assuredly is not. It is biased in this country both in terms of what the laws are and how they are enforced.

      I’ll just leave you with this.

  5. I will give you this……you are a master of semantics. ( By the way, I will put my quotation marks wherever I wish to put them…that should fit your libertarian cell ).

    Ahem: Please answer this question….”So, my question is this. Does selective enforcement of the law, any law, erode and negate the rule of law that we deem we live by? A Nation of Laws”?

    I will digress to your issue of being “illegal” if you cross the border….more semantics albeit a point. If you cross the border WRONGFULLY, then you have committed an illegal act. And, even the child chasing a ball across the border KNOWS that it is against US Law….you know this, I know this, Captain Kangaroo knows this. I have talked with two criminal attorney’s since I have read your response….. they have said that if you knowingly cross the US Border and you know it is against the law, you have criminal intent. you do not have to commit a burglary or a rape or a killing to become a criminal, you become one when there is intent, as you said. Walking across the US Border is a crime. However, this is not the point that I am trying to make…..the point that I am trying to make is in the question that you did not answer.

    Now, let me put this question further. So, the SCOTUS rules that Texas and other states cannot require a picture ID to vote. This, in effect, is an interpretation of some law, although I cannot find anywhere in any law or statute that prohibits a state from requiring a picture ID for voting. Regardless,Texas decides that it chooses not to enforce this interpretation or even enforce this law and requires a picture ID.

    So, now the SCOTUS or I guess the Justice Department, can decide to enforce this law or not enforce it. Correct? Now, we have an issue. I am saying, and this is my opinion, since this selective enforcement issue has come out and it goes far beyond UNLAWFUL immigration, we are really, in effect, no longer a nation of laws if we can pick or choose which we wish to abide by and which ones we do not. So, now, I suppose that I can play the gray area with you liberal types.

    My point is simply, the question that I asked of you. If selective enforcement is the rule, then the opposite can apply. I submit, that selective enforcement actually negates the rule of law.

    Now to throw something back at you……”There is a beautiful little legal adage: quod est necessarium est licitum. That which is necessary is legal”. You cannot seriously believe this…what a subjective thought.

    • ”So, my question is this. Does selective enforcement of the law, any law, erode and negate the rule of law that we deem we live by? A Nation of Laws”?

      Nation of laws is somewhat meaningless when we are all criminals with the Sword of Damacles hanging over our heads.

      It is within the government’s legal power to declare virtually anyone a criminal, try them, convict them, and sentence them. This includes those whose crime is having illegally entered the country. (though, again, I do not recognize this as a crime).

      So, Yes, selective enforcement does erode and negate the rule of law because to enforce every law would land us all in jail, thus the very idea of a “nation of laws” is meaningless on its face as applied in the American legal framework.

      But No, because it is necessary that we deploy discretion (as we have always done) in deciding when a law is reasonably applied and when it is not. We are still human after all, not robots.

      In a Nation of Laws, does it require you to sentence a man to 30 years hard labor if his crime is stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child?

    • I have talked with two criminal attorney’s since I have read your response….. they have said that if you knowingly cross the US Border and you know it is against the law, you have criminal intent.

      I don’t know why you had to consult legal council. I would have agreed with this.

      … unless you’re crossing for a “necessary” reason such as to avoid being gunned down by cartels …

      • I consulted because you made a salient point and there was no way around it…..so I tried to justify it the “Liberal” way….nnot saying that I was wrong and justifying why I was right.

        ( Damn, that hurt my fingers).

    • This, in effect, is an interpretation of some law, although I cannot find anywhere in any law or statute that prohibits a state from requiring a picture ID for voting.

      The law is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which gives the Federal Government power to stop states like *ahem* yours from implementing voting laws which are discriminatory.

      As it turns out, poor people, Mexican Americans, and African Americans are all statistically less likely to have photo ID’s than y’all white folk. As such, you would require them to assume the burden (and possible expense) of acquiring one.

      Thus, you effectively disenfranchise a bunch of people who, not coincidentally, tend to turn your nice Red State a lovely shade of purple.

      • Really? Throwing the 14th Amendment out there?

        Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment

        Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

        State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
        No state would be allowed to abridge the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.
        No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without “due process of law.”
        No person could be denied “equal protection of the laws.”

        As it turns out, poor people, Mexican Americans, and African Americans are all statistically less likely to have photo ID’s than y’all white folk. As such, you would require them to assume the burden (and possible expense) of acquiring one.

        Oh man, I know you do not believe this…..coffee house crap. Id’s are available to all without cost and can even be done by mail.

        But, you have made my point for me…..now…as a State, Texas has “chosen” to disregard the SCOTUS. Statistics do not lie but liars do statistics. Selective enforcement of a sorts. Texas has chosen not to abide by the SCOTUS. This is a direct challenge to the Nation of Laws…..what now? Where does it go if other states do the same?

    • we are really, in effect, no longer a nation of laws if we can pick or choose which we wish to abide by and which ones we do not.

      Agreed.

      But for clarification, please explain who you mean by “we” in that sentence.

      • We is universal…..and see what a great discussion can be had without name calling?

        BTW, I am pulling out the UCMJ on classified documents. Also, the connection to civilian authority when acting in concert with the military as the SOS does.

        • You’re using a lot of acronyms there, buddy. It’s been a long time since I’ve watched JAG.

    • Now to throw something back at you……”There is a beautiful little legal adage: quod est necessarium est licitum. That which is necessary is legal”. You cannot seriously believe this…what a subjective thought.

      Sure I can. I can believe a lot of things.

      It’s a fact of law that if you can prove a thing to be necessary that it cannot be illegal to do.

      The bar isn’t so low that I can say “It was necessary to murder the colonel in order to win the debate.” But, yes, if I am, say, fleeing for my life and the safety of my family, I might very well have a case that standard immigration law might not apply any more than a stop sign applies while I’m bleeding to death.

  6. I think the question you really wanted to ask me about “illegal immigration” is this: Having committed the legal crime of crossing the border (or having opted to remain illegally once here), as a “nation of laws,” are we not obligated to boot them all out?

    • No sir……I was merely using it as an example. I could have used others. I do not want to discuss the immigration process….it sucks. It is wrong and it needs major reformation which we all know, neither side is going to do it. The Libs want the votes and the Conservs want the yard men…..either way it is wrong and a violation of Federal statutes.

  7. NEXT SUBJECT WILL BE: income taxes.

  8. By the way…anyone can now comment on this…you have seen both out positions.

    • oops….out = our

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      “It’s a fact of law that if you can prove a thing to be necessary that it cannot be illegal to do.”

      I have never seen any such “fact of law”, so you must provide proof.

      Whether something is necessary has absolutely no bearing on whether you commit an “illegal” act. It might affect your penalty but you still broke the law, you still acted “illegally.”

      Lets review you examples. Killing in self defense is legal in some states and not in others. At least it wasn’t a few years back. What is considered “self defense” is not determined by whether shooting was “needed” but whether it meets the “legal definitions.” Such cases in fact caused the “castle doctrine” movement to change State laws.

      Running a red light on the way to a hospital is against the law and can in fact get you cited. Whether you are is up to the policeman who sees you. But in some towns you will get a ticket from the camera. Sorry, it matters not why you ran the light, the camera caught you and you are GUILTY. Again, you running a light is “illegal”, your penalty may be waived or your crime ignored, but your act was still “illegal.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Selective enforcement is not the same as prosecutorial discretion nor the same as discretionary sentencing. Although all of these can work to cause the “affect” you are trying to get at.

      It is not the erosion of “law” that is the result of what we are seeing. It is the erosion of the public’s confidence in JUSTICE being applied fairly and objectively. Thus the damage is the tearing of the very social fabric which the concept of “law” was supposed to construct and support.

      There is no JUSTICE for ALL when the Govt. gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and their criteria for enforcement becomes politically motivated. JUSTICE is damaged when sentencing for crimes appears to be different for one social or racial group than others.

      Now in your defense, Mathius was playing the usual leftist game of nitpicking words, attacking them specifically instead of the “idea” or “concept” being expressed. He knew what you were trying to say but chose to play a silly game which took far more of his energy than it would to have addressed the underlying concern.

      • “Selective enforcement is not the same as prosecutorial discretion nor the same as discretionary sentencing”…..I am trying to keep it simple I do not see much difference between selective enforcement/prosecutorial discretion….I do see a huge difference in the use of the term discretionary sentencing. For instance, as Mathius pointed out, a slap on the wrist vs 20 years for the same offense.

        As to Mathius and his leftist approach…I expected that, of course, because he was trying to make a point. However, even with his points, he had to admit at the end that, using the example that I did, it was still a violation of the law. That is my sole point. I was not trying raise a moral issue which is another subject and he was trying to throw moral issues into the fray. It is either right or it is wrong. He can banter about my use of the term “illegal” if he wants but he knew exactly what I meant. However, in the semantics of the debate, he was correct. So, I kept it legal which he had to then agree. Where he is wrong, I believe, is the application and use of the term moral. Attorney’s, policemen, congressmen, you, me, Mathius has no right…..yes I said right…to determine moral and apply it to written law. When I am on the border, I am expected to enforce the law without prejudice. That law….FEDERAL Law…says you cannot have illegal entry into the United States. I am supposed to execute those laws without feeling and prejudice and the minute you decide to not enforce the written law, no matter the excuse, you have violated a trust and you have violated an oath…and you have weakened the law. It is not easy to see starving children or young girls that have been sexually abused but I do not have the authority nor the right to pat them on the head and say welcome. If you want open borders, then change the law and do not break the law and, regardless of moral or ethical feelings, the law is absolute.

        Now, take it a step further than this. When the POTUS openly uses executive memo to circumvent the law, you have not only weakened that specific law, you have also changed a perspective. You have changed the perspective that laws are useless. And when it comes from the top….you have set the example and you cannot claim that executive privilege extends only to the top…that is where the elitist comes in.

        Now that the precedent has been set, the JUstie Department and the SCOTUS have basically become toothless. When you have a Federal Law that is not being enforced and then a State decides to enforce the law and the Federal Government says.,,No no no…..then you have effectively negated the rule of law. The controls are off and it is up to the States to do wht they think is right and enforcing laws on the books are right.

        I say again, that law is absolute and when you have political whim decide which to enforce, that is the same thing in the military as leaving your flank unguarded.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      The criteria for criminal action on the email issue is not intent to “harm”. It is the willful movement of information from Govt. secured locations. Her setting up the server was not just for convenience. The IG included in his report that her staff conveyed her desire to keep her correspondence from FOIA requests by Congress or the Republican party.

      That Sir is INTENT. She committed a crime. That our Govt. chose not to pursue a trial does not change that fact. You can say her crime was “alleged” if you are a reporter. But as a citizen and one who had to deal with these laws, regulations and policies, I can most certainly judge her actions as willful, purposeful and “negligent.” That last little thing is all that is needed to prosecute a case against her.

      You claim that Clinton was interviewed. Technically correct. For a coupld of hours the same weekend the FBI dropped the case. Now you tell me. How long do you think the FBI would have questioned anyone else if they suspected the kind of activity they themselves identified??

      • At the level she is at and with her experience and education, the claim to be naive about the law, secrecy, and FOIA requirements just does not wash. Convenience is just an excuse and anyone with an objective mind would see through that excuse. Had the existence of the server not become public knowledge, does anyone think that the these email would have surfaced? There were FOIA requests that the DoS had returned as no records available. They made little effort to retrieve the information since it was not in their database.
        Comey should have presented the findings and then not made a recommendation since he could not make the final decision to go forward. That would have left the decision squarely in the political arena and stopped the false claims that no laws were broken. Several former District Attorneys have said they would have prosecuted the case. So the statement no DA would have brought charges for lack of intent rings hollow.
        I still think the primary reason it was not prosecuted is that there are emails to and from the WH that would cause much greater problems.

        As for quotes and periods, it depends:
        http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/how-to-use-quotation-marks

      • There is another way to look at this as well. If she as she claimed made a mistake then it shows bad judgment on her part on fundamental matters. That “mistake” would get at a minimum the removal and barring of security clearances for life. There are plenty of people sitting in federal prisons for much lesser lapses of judgement who had no intent of ever revealing state secrets. In any case should someone who has shown such poor judgement on handling sensitive information be promoted to a job that requires complete access to all state secrets? In my opinion she should be disqualified from ever holding a government job again. I will also offer that if she were male or a Bush, that is exactly what would happen. In these situations, it is always instructive to invert the situation (Rep/Dem, Bush/Clinton, male/female)and see if the results are the same.

      • Again, Hillary has violated several laws. I will list them Monday or Tuesday when I can pick up the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Department of Justice/FBI and DOD rules and regulations concerning classified material. He tried to insert the term civies into the issue trying , I believe, making the point that Hillary was not subject to the Military doctrine. Well, sir, there are four administrative positions that are, indeed, subject to the UCMJ. Here is why……the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Sectretery of Defense are all “defacto” respondants to the UCMJ. Why? Because they have direct contact with the military, control of aspects of the military, access to all codes and operations of the military. The POTUS does not wear a uniform, yet he is the Commander in Chief and can direct military operations if he wants. In the absence of the POTUS, the VP is next. The Secretary of State can order, participate in, or otherwise control military response to specifics of her A/O ( Area of Operations ). Benghazi being a prime example. She even ordered the changing of uniforms. The Sec of Def is a figure head but is in the prime commander in the event of the disappearance of the other three.

        Also, the Justice Department, in 1996, adopted the UCMJ as the basic jurisdiction on classified material.

  9. RE: Photo IDs. My mother never drove a day in her life but had a state ID. My wife has not driven for 13 years and is wheel chair bound but she has a state ID. Lack of proper ID for voting is a red herring.

    • Well it is difficult these days if not impossible to enter an office building with government offices WITHOUT a photo ID. Also true for many large corporate buildings in NYC. This is a BS charge.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Stephen…this is for you. With your admiration of TR, have you ever read his autobiography? In it he relates a conversation where he was asked if he ever regretted NOT getting his law degree and becoming a member of the bar. His answer was “not in the least. Studying to be a lawyer does not teach morality, it goes to great length to eliminate it” It teaches a lawyer to argue both sides of the coin with equal conviction.

        I did paraphrase because I no longer have the book and could not reference it for the exact quote.

        Even a prosecutor will omit truths if it does not fit his or her agenda. As does a defense attorney, who will use any method including lying to mask the truth, because his or her only objective is to get their client off, by any means.

        I will cite a specific case and that is the Duke Lacross teams charges of rape of a stripper at a party. The evidence completely exonerated the team, but the DA for political reasons hid the information because it did not fit his quest. Even the multi million dollar defense attorneys “forgot” to get the results, which they were entitled to receive, but yet kept billing millions collectively to the parents. It took a summer intern law student to unearth the ommision by all the lawyers. Once exposed the State AG immediately took over and dropped all charges plus had the Durham DA disbarred and he only spent a night in jail. Duke University paid millions in the lawsuits filed and won. Al Sharpton and all the other race baiters also should have been sued, but got left alone…..I believe the DA Nifong should have served at least one of the prison terms the students would surely have gotten…just as a warning against such political malfesence by an elected official. He was running for re-electon and that was the main driving reason for his continued prosecution even though HE knew the team was innocent.

        • TR was right, most times.

          He suffered from the classic “great man” illness, he got too full of himself. I do not hold it against him because he was the real deal in so many ways. However, those last few years of his life and maybe back to the 1912 race when he put himself and his “vision” before the good of the country. Instead, we got Wilson whom he hated with a passion usually only reserved for sin but nonetheless was instrumental in his election. When he failed to oust Taft at the convention he should have just gotten on board.

    • All over the news these last few days are local reports of school supply giveaway programs….they were showing all the folks lined up by 6am today at Jerry World (local slang for Cowboy Stadium).

      To qualify to receive the free school supplies PHOTO ID WAS REQUIRED. On the news they made this point several times.

      Imagine, the unfairness! The burden on those poor people to actually have a photo ID!

      Oh, wait, no one was complaining. THEY ALL HAVE IT.

      I noticed something else…NO ONE HAD ANY PROBLEM GETTING TO THE STADIUM, quite early in fact. Before dawn….they said people started lining up at 5 am. I happened to wake up early this morning, and it was one of the first items on the local news agenda.

      Anyone else notice that when there is a big giveaway program, NONE of the folks wanting the freebies EVER COMPLAIN about lack of transportation or lack of photo ID in order to qualify to get the goodies? They show up in droves, which is fine. I am not complaining about the school supplies being given away.

      My point is it is the elitists and activists who whine and complain about the “burden” of photo ID. There is no burden. And unless you are a complete idiot, you know this.

      Murf

      • Welcome back

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Relating to “free” giveaways…..if you can get a copy of “Heaven Above”. It’s an early Peter Sellars movie.

        A bishop from a country in Africa came to the church my Mother was involved in. They constantly were having drives to collect goods, clothes, food you name it to be sent to Africa and given away to the disadvantage people there. he specifically asked that this be stopped. When people can get shoes for free it puts a person who started a shoe business, of being a cobbler OUT OF BUSINESS, not only prolonging the problem of dependancy, but creates one as well. Because the people that were in business, now are out of business and are they themselves needy..

  10. Some interesting stuff. First selective prosecution/enforcement/justice. This is a liberal grey area, because “it depends” always surfaces as if it is even important. Why do cops harass in high crime neighborhoods but not harass white people in non high crime ares the same? I use harass, because in many ways it is. The Liberal’s call racism, but the obvious answer is the crime rate. The question should be, why is the crime rate so high in one area versus the other and try to fix that problem, which is never even spoken of. This is the selective justice handed to the black communities, by the Democrats themselves, but nobody seems to get that part, it’s the police departments fault, so says the Liberals.

    TOO Many laws….agreed. Along with too many regulations, too many armed government agencies and too many corrupt politicians. But too many laws is NO EXCUSE to not enforce the laws. Just like Hitlary claiming that her predecessors used private email too, it was no excuse. Just because one person kills another (in self defense) is not an excuse for another person to kill another person, just because. That line of thinking is liberal nonsense.

    Immigration laws worked just fine for 200 years or so. The problem is a man made problem. Enforce the laws that work or be over run like Europe is. Make these people running from their countries problems go home and FIX their own problems instead of bringing their problems here. Sorry, got a problem with government corruption, take up arms and remove the problem.

    • “GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true?

      COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent —

      GOWDY: So it was not true? COMEY: That’s what I said.

      GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was not marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received, was that true?

      COMEY: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

      GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said ‘I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?

      COMEY: There was classified material e-mail.

      GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

      COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of State.

      GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

      COMEY: No. We found work-related e-mails, thousands that were not returned.”

      For a transcript of the entire eight and one-half hour hearing, go to: https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/oversight-state-department/.

      Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/little-white-lies-big-damnable-lies-hillary-rodham-clinton/#ixzz4HDKfcZy5

      Clinton is an unindicted felon. Selective justice for the elite. What BULLSHIT!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Hillary and the left continually contend that what she did was OK because Powell and Rice also used private servers. The one big distinction is that both Powell and Rice asked the State dept and the dept SET the servers up with gov data controls. There was never any question that the gov had all the information. In Hillary’s case she did it on her own hook, did not ask permission, and all the IG’s in all levels of government that investigated and wrote reports, said that her server was outside of the gov, and never in any way authorized, nor administerd by.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        further more.. the semantics of her continually saying that there were no classified documents on her server. If she did ALL her work on the private server, then there certainly had to be classified documents on it. However the semantics is that the documents did not have a classification on them, because she neglected to follow that process also. It is the originators responsibility to classify the documents to the correct level, but then it can also go through, I’ll say the mill, and the gov agencies classify it accordingly. They had no knowledge of the server…BS from anyone havingreceived ant email from her, but the she also says, they were classified at a later date. Again semantics….if they got classified when they were put through the review process by gov officials they were classified back when she created and handled them….just not labeled by her.

        In my business it was a requirement for me to correctly label the classification of the documents I handeled of created. Then the company handled them accordingly.

        • What people are missing is that all material from the Secretary of State is deemed classified unless otherwise marked…..NOT CLASSIFIED. Everyone forgets this. As SOS, she signed documents elated to this….just as I have signed the same documents. Anything coming out of my office is deemed classified unless otherwise marked. We have a HUGE STAMP that says NOT CLASSIFIED that is stamped on all documents that are not classified.

          In addition, emails and text messages are also considered classified if you have a security classification…..which means, if you texted your daughter about the color of a dress…IT IS CLASSIFIED. Want to know who put that rule in????? The Obama Administration in an attempt to keep people from talking or texting.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Bottom line is that everything she did and said was an obfuscation of the truth and designed to mislead the investigators and the public.

            Only a lawyer and a congenital liar can be one such as her

  11. A new word!

    Goldwater

    Gold wat er

    verb

    criticize unfairly; disparage.

    The media goldwatered almost every comment made by Donald Trump.

  12. It occurred to me today that if you attended a Dodger game in the 1950’s that Trump would fit right in with his speech patterns and phrases. Trump also has a sense of humor. I lived and worked in north Jersey or a dozen years. While there, I interacted with several Jewish scientists of New York upbringing. They constantly pun and one has to be sharp to keep up with them. So again Trump’s sense of humor fits in. The rest of the country does not notice this because they have not been exposed to it and because most NY professional politicians suppress the ability.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I know what you mean by “punning” and or being sarcastic. It takes a sharp mind and also a sense of what has happened in the past to grasp these communication techniques.

      I was out the other week with a neighbor friend. Unfortunately she had her boyfriend along, but that is not the point. She and I were going back and forth and it was a rare point that either of us did not grasp, no matter how obtuse. Her boyfriend had a glazed look on his face and never comprehended any part of the conversation, or wit. He needed plain english. Unfortunately most people fall in that category.

      • THE ORGANIZED LEFT WING NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR. STALINISTS ARE, WELL………….STALINISTS.

        Hillary in her pant-suits with Mao collars will bring us 1960’s Peking. (I think it was still called Peking then but it was well after it was called Peiping)

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Like I said months ago, the Trump thing doesn’t sell well outside the northeast.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-up-florida-new-hampshire-extends-lead-electoral-map/

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Seems we had a discussion about this problem not to long ago. Looks like the Navy and Marines are taking the Colonel’s warning seriously.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/marines-cell-phones-general-robert-neller/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlarge

    • They had better. At NTC last year (National Training Center), one of the things we did when finding positions was scan for phone signals and traced the signals to defensive positions and fox holes. It was so prolific, that when we traced cell phone transmissions, we would plot them on a grid….you can find the holes in a defense by plotting simple cell phone transmissions. The other thing that was very easy, even in the desert, you could not crouch in a fox hole because your signal would be blocked. You had to raise your phone above the edge of your defensive position even if you were on a hill to maintain a line of sight. On a clear night in the desert with a pair of 60x binos…….you could see cell phone lights as far away as 6 miles.

      People are so dependent upon their cell phones, we could even track helicopter positions. The pilot would be talking to his sweetheart or playing a game in one position….cell phones put out distinctive signals…so you put that signal pulse in a scan program and start scanning……hours later you pick up the same signature in another location….simply plot the two positions. VOILA…..INSTANT INTELLIGENCE.

      The enemy….even the desert nomads……have the same equipment we do…..they can trace.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I’m sure not with the new age. Cell phones are the bane of our existance. I firmly believe that they should be used as though it was your landline. Just allows freedom of movement. I never take the phone into a place of business. It usually is OFF unless I am at home. When I want to use it I turn it on. Then I receive missed calls and make calls. I do my internet research at home before traveling. I never use it as a mapping device like a GPS. ……how stupid of field commanders to allow these devices into the field. Just the other year the FBI tracked that bank robber across the south via his phone.

        Almost like when the VT Army Reserve battalion was called up in the 1st Gulf War…..geez the ladies bitched that they could not take their homeless person size hand bags with them and NOT just the issued uniform and assessories..

        • Unfortunately, the “new commanders” are pretty wimpy. They have their own cell phones and they try to use the “I am your friend” method of commanding. Drinking beer with the enlisted men trying to “fit in”. It does not work. You should see the attitude of the new LT’s that I train. Especially, ROTC LT’s that do not go through West Point.. and get direct commissions. They bring liberal college standards with them….however, two weeks on the border or a summer camp at NTC usually opens their eyes a little.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I was trying to think of times I went out with the group I lead. Once, and it was after I had separated from active duty.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I forgot to add to my posting that tracking an individual via their cell phone coordinates is very much like what archeologists did at the Little Big Horn. They were able to track an indivuals movement by the spent shell casings and firing pin marks. 100% unique. A cell phone is just a new version with the drawback of being real time.

  15. Anyone can answer this but before going to taxes…on the issue of selective enforcement and the rule of law….

    YOU are the President of the United States….Texas has thumbed its nose at you. It chooses not to follow the law. (1) There will be a picture ID required at voting despite the SCOTUS ruling (2) Texas enforces Federal Law regardless of its instructions not to do so (3) Texas refuses to redraw districting lines regardless of Federal Court rulings and EEOC and DOJ rulings (4) Texas refuses to abide by Department of Education guidelines on the school lunch program. It serves what it wants and that includes pizza, corn dogs, donuts, etc. (5) Texas patrols the Rio Grande River even though the Justice Department and Homeland Defense says it violates the Federal Law concerning International boundaries.

    Now, Mr. President, what are you going to do?

    Oh, you also have one other problem….Since Texas now has control of its own gold and is going to build and open a mint and create, with other countries, a banking relationship using gold as a standard and have trade with other countries as an independent state using gold as a standard……this is predicted to happen within 24 months……what do you do?

    All of this is in your face despite the “rule of law”.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Sir….did you mean to say that Texas chooses to NOT follow the law? It seems to me that Texas is following the law more closely than the administration is by a long shot. where in the voting rights act does it say that you DO NOT have to identify yourself at the polls.

      How wide a border does the Feds claim sole jurisdiction. A line on a map, anything within 1, 2, 5,10 miles. Then they should own 100% of all the illegal activity commited in that zone.

      • Well, yes, in that context but when you have court rulings that supposedly have the effect of law…..that is where I am going. As to your question…..

        The territorial sea is a maritime zone over which the United States exercises sovereignty. Sovereignty extends to the airspace above and to the seabed below the territorial sea. The U.S. territorial sea extends 12 nautical miles from the baseline.

        The contiguous zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea. In this zone, the U.S. may exercise the control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, cultural heritage, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. The U.S. contiguous zone is measured 24 nautical miles from the baseline.

        Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
        The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the U.S. extends 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline and is adjacent to the 12 nm territorial sea of the U.S., overlapping the 12-24nm contiguous zone. Within the EEZ, the U.S. has:

        sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living and nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.
        jurisdiction as provided for in international and domestic laws with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment other rights and duties provided for under international and domestic laws.

        The Rio Grande River extends to the center of the river…..the US claims it has jurisdiction of 1.5 km on the US side of the border.

    • Texas is, as are all states, a sovereign state. A state is not a province. It is a country unto itself. The federal government of the United States was formed as a confederation of free, independent and sovereign states. That federal government was granted certain authority and responsibilities, mostly to deal with international trade (including customs), national defense, and treaties with other nations. They were also tasked with making sure that commerce between the individual states was fair. That is interstate not intrastate commerce. I believe they were also given control over navigable waters. The Constitution is a contract. If the Federal government does not uphold a clause in that contract, it can be declared null and void. Texas has every right to stem the illegal invasion across its southern border.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The democrats would like the concept of individual States and States rights to disappear. They would just become administrative districts. I believe that was Wilson’s vision.

      • So, as POTUS,,,you would do nothing because you could do nothing….correct?

        • POTUS could do his contracted job which is to enforce the existing laws on immigration so the state would not have to. POTUS could recognize states rights and stay out of the internal affairs of the state including election laws that are actually fair to all. They are always so concerned about a possible few that might not have the proper IDs but miss the many who’s vote is negated by an illegal vote.
          The coinage part could be a problem since that is an express clause in the constitution. They got the Liberty Dollar because of the word dollar was embossed on the coin. So just make sure to not use the word dollar. As for issuing script, again I think it is how it is worded. What is a check if not private script? Just don’t use the words legal for public debt.

          • As to the bullion, it is all going to be bullion, however, that is in the future. Right now, they are talking about nothing more than storing gold and doing, I guess, trade transactions on the basis of gold. I am not sure about that as yet. But this would be a State doing global commerce not on any currency standard.

            But, it is moving that direction. But more to my point…..you have a nation of laws that does not abide by its laws on a Federal Level….so the only case in point is that they, the Feds, have actually given up their rights, so to speak.

            • This is that Constitutional equivalent of Jury Nullification.

              If I were your governor, I’d spend the money to line up lawyers who would
              fine tooth comb the Constitution of the United States and Judicial findings over the past 200 years to give ABSOLUTE chapter and verse on the Federal Government exceeding its lawful authority. If I had to I would then run commercials and take out ads all over the U.S. on the FACTS.

              The slippery slope of a “flexible” living, breathing constitution means that there really is no constitution. There is NO guarantee of any right which cannot be abrogated instantaneously by the will of the nine oligarchs.

              I am reading Jean Lateguys’ novel “Centurions” about the French experience in Indochina after the defeat at Dien Bien Phu and how it formulated, among officers of the parachute regiments their way of fighting in Algeria (no quarter asked, none given). What I have forgotten over the past 40 years is just how important is to take a book like “The Rules for Radicals” and turn it around and use it on them. That is what the French did in Algeria and I had forgotten that it was working before the liberal politicians pulled the rug out from under them. Which of course led to the mutiny. We should learn that lesson. they tie us up in court, we tie them up in court. They issue an edict. We use chapter and verse of the law to have a state court nullify it. They take it to Federal court who issues a “stay” against us, our state court overturns their stay saying they have no jurisdiction in the matter.

              All it really takes is balls.

  16. Blackflag says:

    Clinton: re: Mens rea

    Sorry, Mathius, that doesn’t fly here. Negligence does NOT require Mens Rea; just because you don’t know what may happen, does not excuse negligence.

    You set off an explosion in an empty field, believing “who can get hurt?” and a rock flies into your neighbor’s house and injuries him. Your intention is irrelevant you had no plan to hurt him, but you did. You are NEGLIGENT.

    In the matter of state secrets and their handling, the statute clearly states “NEGLIGENCE” regardless of intent.

    She is guilty and the only reason she gets a pass is because she is politically powerful.
    You even did that once with one email, you’d be toast.

    • Mens Rea is not a defense in security areas anyway…..but you are correct. Mens rea is not a defense in the military when classified information is disseminated and or negligently stored or even done accidentally. There are no accidental security issues.

      Clinton knows that the very nature of the Secretary of State is classified…..even if she uses Charmin toilet paper…..it is classified. Just saying “good morning: over any technical transmission device is CLASSIFIED. She knew it…..and she violated it. She knowlingly violated it because she knew, even if caught, she would walk. You want to talk about someone scary? She knows what she is doing….that is more scary than a Donald Trump who has a big mouth.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      In a round about way it’s like the people who claim, their use of drugs like cocaine are victimless crimes, it only involves them……unfortunately those people have not looked at the southern border lately, nor Colombia or Bolivia in years past. Ask the cast and film crews about actors like Richard Dreyfus, or Sir Anthony Hopkins, or Jasmine Bleeth, or Robert Downey Jr who with their use of drugs jeopordized (sp) their livelihoods. Some of those named got the message when they found themselves unemployable until they cleaned up, No producer will risk millions in a film, and if they do they back up their investment with insurance. Then ask those that didn’t get the message, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Prince and countless others.

      When my old high school has built an adjacent HS in what was the parking lot, for students who have drug and drug related crimes and alcohol abuse and criminal convictions so are not allowed in the general school population and spend a sizable chunk of their day in rehab, This aparently was a compromise for this school district instead of sending the offenders to prison. Now it would be interesting to see if the inner city schools have available the same treatment or are they just given a GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL CARD.

      BF…..glad you’re still with us and obviously monitoring or discourse.

    • Mr. Flag!!!

      How are you, my old friend and foe?

      Negligence does NOT require Mens Rea

      True.

      CRIMINAL negligence does NOT require Mens Rea

      False.

      She is guilty and the only reason she gets a pass is because she is politically powerful.
      You even did that once with one email, you’d be toast.

      True.. toast as in canned, booted out, blackballed, censured, and publicly tarred and feathered.

      But not charged criminally. Let us consult with James Comey to see why:

      “All the [previous] cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice. But we do not see those things here.” (emphasis is mine)

      We see here that Mr. Comey is aware that any and all previous charges under the relevant statutes were for people who committed not only the actus reus, but possessed, or reasonably appeared to possess the mens rea.

      It seems, that as far as this particular statute has been historically applied, mens rea is not merely the intent to mishandle classified information, but rather the intent to mishandle for nefarious purposes (my personal take on his subtext – don’t quote me on this).

      Further:

      “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” (emphasis is mine)

      Mr. Comey, the man in possession of all the available salient facts and who possesses a far better understanding of the relevant legal regime and legal precedents could not find the mens rea to suggest prosecution. You, and the colonel, who have neither his expertise nor availability of facts, have pronounced Mrs. Clinton guilty without a trial on the simple grounds that you believe Mr. Comey has been compromised and that, therefore, your reading of the relevant facts and laws supersedes his own. That is not how things work around here.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Mathius……was it unintended that she set up an “unauthorized” server in her basement in Chappaqua to handle ALL her State and personal business, without the government safeguards, such as they are? That was a premeditated action. Just the very fact that she did that showed intent and “Gross Negligence” which Comey layed out. That in itself is a violation of the law as written, therefore making it a chargeable offense. Sure she has not been convicted, yet, One has to be charged first, which Obama and Lynch will not do.

        How many times has a person been charged and convicted with a violation of a law, and the court says….”ignorance of the law is not an excuse” Hillary and her team including Bill have been around long enough to clearly not fall in the category of not being cognizent of the law.

        Sorry your argument does not wash, given that the Colonel for his entire career has handled government classified documents and surly knows the law by heart. I handled and worked in areas with classified material for 35 years, either gov or corporate. We had an annual certification that we took on handling of documents and data. Her pleading ignorance is absolute BS.

        • was it unintended that she set up an “unauthorized” server in her basement in Chappaqua to handle ALL her State and personal business, without the government safeguards, such as they are

          Nope.

          That was a premeditated action.

          Yup.

          Just the very fact that she did that showed intent and “Gross Negligence” which Comey layed out.

          Maybe. “Gross Negligence” is a term of art about which I am not qualified to opine. I defer to Councilor Buck.

          That in itself is a violation of the law as written, therefore making it a chargeable offense.

          Chargeable and “should be charged” are two separate things. You and I have committed plenty of “crimes” by your standards. In modern America, it seems, just breathing is a crime.

          Mr. Comey notes that in all previous relevant cases, there was a finding of (or reasonable suspicion of) indications of “disloyalty to the United States.” That is, is every previous case in which someone was prosecuted for mishandling classified information, it was because they were selling it to the Russians or trying to leak it or something else. Everyone, like Clinton, we can ready by extension, was probably run out on a rail, but never charged.

          You seem to be suggesting that because she could be charged, she should be charged even though this is a standard of law which has never been applied to this statute and which, if applied broadly, would land every last one of us in jail. Did I get that right?

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Latest big case….General Petreus., he was not selling anything. Had some classified docs in his desk still after leaving the CIA when it was revealed he was having a affair. The biographer whom the affair was with, had the clearance to see said documents, just the lack of a need to know….that said, how many classified documents were left on Hillarys illegal server after she left the State Dept. Same rules. Petreus is now a convicted felon, and so by the way is Bill Clinton.

            No proof of this, just a gut feel. The Petreus thing was what is called a honey trap, perfected by Marcus Wolfe of the East German secret police…..Petreus embarrased Obama and Hillary and Biden, with calling their bluff regarding Afghanistan, he had to be destroyed and discredited.

            • Latest big case….General Petreus., he was not selling anything. Had some classified docs in his desk still after leaving the CIA when it was revealed he was having a affair. The biographer whom the affair was with, had the clearance to see said documents, just the lack of a need to know

              Deliberately sharing classified data with someone you know doesn’t have the proper authorization (need to know) is a deliberate act of malfeasance.

              It is both the actus reus and the mens rea. He intended to leak classified data. That is the very purpose of this law – to stop people from intentionally leaking classified data.

              that said, how many classified documents were left on Hillarys illegal server after she left the State Dept.

              There is no evidence she leaked anything. There is no evidence she intended to leak anything. There is no evidence she shared anything. There is no evidence she did anything whatsoever improper with the emails other than where she chose to store them.

              This is like bringing documents home in your briefcase – shame on you – but that’s the end of it. The other is like, well, like deliberately leaking classified data to your mistress. How you see an equivalence here is beyond me.

              Petreus is now a convicted felon,
              As he should be. He took a position of trust and used his access to classified data for personal gain.

              and so by the way is Bill Clinton.
              Is he? I’m pretty sure this is wrong. But I’ll let you back it up if you can.

              No proof of this, just a gut feel. The Petreus thing was what is called a honey trap, perfected by Marcus Wolfe of the East German secret police…..Petreus embarrased Obama and Hillary and Biden, with calling their bluff regarding Afghanistan, he had to be destroyed and discredited.

              You know I don’t share your penchant for conspiracy theories, but even if this were true, no one forced him to betray the trust of his country.

              Besides, if Obama wanted to get rid of him, he would have just had him murdered and another one of Obama’s fellow Lizard people could have taken his place. Why go to such lengths?

              • What is GROSS NEGLIGENCE?

                A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard. Blatant indifference to one’s legal duty, other’s safety, or their rights are examples. There is no specific legal definition, but if one drives recklessly and kills another, it is applied as involuntary manslaughter.

                Law Dictionary: What is GROSS NEGLIGENCE? definition of GROSS NEGLIGENCE (Black’s Law Dictionary)
                http://thelawdictionary.org/gross-negligence/

                Her duty to properly secure classified material was breached. Comey was clear on this. Her CLEAR indifference to her legal duty to know what is classified, especially Top Secret and above is clearly within the minimum definition of gross negligence. Many have been indicted for far, far less. Hitlary is being protected by the rest of the corrupt government, Republicans included. All the stupid hearings are nothing more than pro wrestling style bullshit.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                and so by the way is Bill Clinton.

                Is he? I’m pretty sure this is wrong. But I’ll let you back it up if you can.

                Convicted of lying to a Grand Jury. It was a felony conviction and he lost his license to practice law and was disbarred.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Didn’t have to leak anything….just the act in itself especially when it dealt with thousands of e-mails, Dealing with her email via a blackberry which is wireless, is subject to capture by very simple survellience techniques…..I’ll get antedotal here…..many years ago when the subject of data being stolen by persons unauthorized to have that data, was an example my Father was given in Paris. He was taken in a van to show how easy it was to steal data. They parked outside of a bank. The experts tuned into the frequencies of the computers being used and they watched the money transactions roll by unencryted. That was over 35 years ago. 40 years ago, in an old NSG site we could just about listen into ANY transmitted signal in the world. Now the site is an NSA facility. Being sarcastic now,,,,I believe in 2016 we are just a bit more capable of snagging information anytime anyone really sets their mind to it.

                I believe documents also were found that she shared with an personal aquaintence outsider, non government and having zero security clearances, activities in Libya and business opportunities post gaddafi.

                I’ll roll another comment in……What crimes do I commit daily and am unaware of? You cited breathing as an obsurd example, but as a relative conservative as defined today, and you being a liberal may think my very existence is a crime against humanity. We here in New Bern believe in the true definition of being a liberal, which is LIBERTY.

          • Maybe I am being overly simplistic here as I usually am but if I had no intent to exceed the speed limit causing a fatal accident does that not exonerate me of possible criminal charges? I also had no intent to get drunk that night. I can get witnesses to swear that I told them I would not get drunk.

            • Thanks, SK. I’d be happy to take a shot at this, though, again, I would suggest that Councilor Buck might be a better source.

              I, too, have been overly simplistic. There are exceptions to the mens rea requirements known as “strict liability” laws. An example you hit on the head would be speeding. Generally speaking, strict liability can only be applied to the most minor of offenses.

              For something like speeding, the idea is that “the very act of operating a 2,000 lb kinetic missile at freeway speeds creates an obligation of care, so it’s not enough to say ‘I didn’t mean to’ but rather, you ignored a reasonable obligation.”

              It gets wishy-washy when you get into cases like DUI and statutory rape where you can commit a more serious crime (with more serious penalties) without mens rea. One argument is that you made the choice to drink and so you own your actions while drunk. The very act of drinking creates an obligation to behave responsibly while drunk or you should be drinking in the first place. As for statutory rape, I don’t have an answer other than protecting kids is kindof a big deal and the rules sometimes go out the window for things like that. ::shrug::

              You raise an excellent point, and the best answer I can give you is this: the US legal system is built up by what’s called “case law.” What this means is that there are the basic laws written by the government and then everything else from how they are interpreted and applied to exceptions and exemptions and everything you might think of as a “technicality” are built up over time by cases. The courts decide what the laws mean and how guild is determined. This is why the hierarchy of the court system is such a big deal. All the lower courts build up all this messy case law and the higher courts sort it out.

              US law is generated by human beings using human reasoning in varied contexts to try to establish a “reasonable” way to determine what is and is not a crime. Sometimes it’s going to get a little complicated.

              • Have there not been prosecutions where information, not carefully safeguarded has fallen into hands that should not have had it? I cannot believe that in all the 20th and now the 21st century there have been no cases where there was no intent, merely sloppy handling of high security documents with TOTAL disregard to their security.

                Taking it a step further, it is one thing for a young soldier or sailor to leave something lying around or on the front seat of his car but something entirely different by laying it out in the open knowing full well that hostile “actors” are around. A non secure server is every bit as dangerous for all but a total idiot to see as laying out the plans for the Normandy Invasion on the table in a room in Secretary Cordell Hull’s office at State where the Spanish/Portugese/Swiss ambassadors are about to visit in 1944.

                When you talk of “case law” I would think there is some.

          • “Chargeable and “should be charged” are two separate things.” Therein lies the problem. Semantics….at the very least, Hillary Clinton should be stripped of all security clearances. Stripping of security clearance makes her ineligible for POTUS.

            • at the very least, Hillary Clinton should be stripped of all security clearances.

              Seems reasonable. I approve.

              Can we add tar and feathering to this?

              Stripping of security clearance makes her ineligible for POTUS.

              I don’t remember seeing that anywhere in the Constitution.

              … though it might be tough being President when your staff has a higher security clearance than you …

              “I’m sorry Madam President, but you aren’t cleared to know about that..”

              I wonder if being elected President has some sort of magical restorative power regarding security clearances… Maybe she could issue herself clearance via executive order?

              • Does the Dread Pirate keep you awake at night?

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Does anyone here remember one of the campaign slogans of Bill’s back during his 1st run for president, in regards to Hillary’s role. “You get two for the price of one”. What about Bill’s role, if she is elected? She does keep invoking memories of the success of his presidency as an inference of her qualifications and that if she’s elected we be back to the good old days.

                Here is a thought…if any of the stories about her health turn out to be true, I believe she is just hanging on to be in the record book as being the 1st women president of the US. She’ll resign ultimately in favor of Kaine.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Mathius…have you looked through the requirements to get just about any job even remotely touching the military and state. “MUST BE ABLE TO GET…such and such security clearance”

                Senator Patrick Leahy from VT one day, took a bunch or reporters into the area that the Senate receives their briefings from groups like the CIA etc. Totally verbotten. Security teams once they became aware of his transgression, swept the room and found all sorts of bugs the reporters had placed. he was stripped of all clearances and I believe all posts regarding military and security committees and oversight.

              • Anita: No, I’ve thoroughly soundproofed his cage 8×10 cage.

                Dale: I was a little young for Bill’s run, but I’ve heard of the slogans. I see nothing wrong with being married to someone who has eight (rather successful) years of experience. If you don’t think practically all First Spouses are politically involved, you’re off your rocker.

                As for H’s health, I don’t buy the evidence for one second. Just too damned convenient all summarized up like that and hitting every note: getting worse, anti-anxiety, anti-depression, seizures, et cetera. No sir, I’ll require better evidence. Plus, for what it’s worth, 60 isn’t an age where a lot of people in high stress careers have perfect health – remember St. Reagan wasn’t exactly the picture of health either.

                Dale again: I’m not an expert on this, but what you say seems reasonable. I worked at a company that took security to the point of psychosis, so I can generally appreciate what you’re getting at here. That said, President is not a military position – it is a civilian position by design. I don’t know how you’d resolve the impasse, but the President needs access to classified information and the Constitution doesn’t give the authority to disqualify someone based on their clearance level.

                Personally, I like the idea of Bill sitting in a lounge chair with an afghan on his lap, puffing a cigar and pre-screening intel for Hillary. Then he carefully words a summary so that he can get her ruling without her knowing the classified intel. “Say, Hill, suppose we had some Jewish friends and they told us about some bad guys in, um, ‘Paudi Parabia’, and we had an, er, aircraft in the area.. how would you feel about dropping, um ‘boom stuff’ on them?”

  17. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Man, Isn’t the US just kicking butt in the Rio Olympics…..Hats off to these athletes.

  18. Last note on this subject…….If D13 The Colonel gets up from his desk at work in a secure area with no chance of compromise and goes to the latrine and leaves his computer on in his personal office without signing out of a classified area and it was done inadvertantly…..D13 would not only lose his position, and his security clearance for gross negligence…..but be subject to Article 32.

    In addition, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
    ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

    (8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Homeland Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency.and any other organization, including admnistrative and Presidential cabinet ,when assigned to, in supervision of, and serving with the armed forces. (Amended)

    (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (IMPORTANT NOTE: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007, CONGRESS CHANGED THIS PROVISION TO READ: “In time of declared war or a contigency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.”

    This comes from my copy of the UCMJ, amended, March 31, 2014.

    Nuff said.

    • You’d be canned, sure. Probably caned, too.

      But if you were a civvy, would you be PROSECUTED?

      I’m guessing the answer is nope.

  19. GMAN….can you start a new thread, please, on TAXES? Thank you.

  20. Gman,

    Her duty to properly secure classified material was breached. Comey was clear on this. Her CLEAR indifference to her legal duty to know what is classified, especially Top Secret and above is clearly within the minimum definition of gross negligence. Many have been indicted for far, far less.

    I’m going to need to see a citation on this. Mr. Comey was also pretty clear that all precedent for prosecution involved intent to operate against the interests of the US – that is, to leak the data, not just mishandle it.

    All the [previous] cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice. But we do not see those things here.” (emphasis is mine)

    There’s nothing to suggest she was operating disloyaly to the United States.

    So lets say she was “grossly negligent” Is it right to prosecute her under a statute that has NEVER been applied in this manner before? You talk about double-stands a lot, but that would seem to be a double-standard, no?

    • The whole “intent” thing is bullshit. The bitch put a private server in her bathroom to conduct government business on, much of which she was aware would be classified (if not she sure as hell don’t need to be President because she’s f-ing stupid). That was and is INTENT, period. Any lame ass new lawyer could have got a conviction. Comey was bought off or just didn’t want to commit suicide (real or political). This was/is a clear case of so many law violations, INCLUDING lying to Congress while under oath.

      • I think what Comey’s getting at is that she had intent to break the law, but she didn’t have intent to do anything bad with it (eg leak it). And, since all precedent of this law is for prosecution only when there’s intent to do something malicious, and since he couldn’t find that, there’s no INTENT under this statute.

        • Matt, What about the issue of producing ALL documents? How does anyone know what she scrubbed? If the hackers have found some things (note the plural) which were work related in what she magically disappeared does she not then face criminal charges? If she were subpoenaed to produce all work related documents I am certain, based on cases I’ve been involved in, she could be criminally charged.

  21. Gman,

    What crimes do I commit daily and am unaware of?

    Faking a sick day constitutes a scheme to defraud your company.

    Failing to pick up your litter on federal or park grounds.

    Protesting too close to a voting place.

    Any physical contact during an argument. Or using “excessive force” to end one.

    By some right-to-life definitions, having a miscarriage would be manslaughter.

    Improperly disposing of a deceased pet by burying them in your back yard.

    Driving more than 20 mph over the speed limit (esp in a work or school zone).

    Mailing a laptop without properly marking that the package contains a lithium battery.

    Posting a link to a terrorist’s website.

    Threatening or seeming to encourage your supporters to shoot Hillary Clinton.

    Getting lost in the woods and setting foot on certain government grounds.

    For a while there, shipping a Playstation out of the country.

    Import an Kinder Egg or haggis.

    Failing to declare those Cuban cigars at customs (no longer applies).

    Lying on a tax form (you know you do it).

    Watching *ahem* adult entertainment that turns out to have been.. well you get the idea..

    Driving with a BAC of 0.09.

    Falling for a scam and mailing money to certain recipients constitutes wire fraud and/or mail fraud and/or money laundering and/or financing terrorism.

    Possession of *ahem* certain mind-altering substances.

    Do you honestly expect me to believe that every single gun you own is properly registered and secured as required?

    Have you ever let your nephew sit on your lap and drive the car up the driveway?

    Lied to get out of jury duty? Or to get on the jury?

    Provided alcohol to a 20 year old? Or cigarettes to a 17 year old? Did you ever give your nephew a sip of the ol’ fire whiskey?

    Ownership of a dangerous pet such as a velociraptor?

    Illegally modified, potentially unsafe, or EPA non-compliant pickup truck? Maybe even something as minor as tinted windows or a don’t tread on me sticker that obstructs your view?

    Changed your truck’s oil, then “improperly” disposed of it?

    Shot a man in Reno just to watch him die?

    I’m sure I could come up with more, but you get the idea. If the gov’ment really wanted to come after you, you probably have at least one of these strikes against you. And, sure, our friend Mens Rea might protect you – it should – but then again.. the legal system doesn’t always operate the way it “should.”

    • If one is caught breaking one or more of the “way too many” laws, then thats why we have jury trials. It’s called “DUE PROCESS” which the people were denied because the witch got caught and there was NO WAY the Obama administration was going to prosecute, absolutely NO WAY. The Democrats have proven that they only prosecute those they choose, violate tax laws and IRS regulations against ONLY those organizations they choose, and will illegally change laws without Congressional approval to fit their agenda.

      This my friend is not a government that WE should accept, EVER. When we make silly excuses, like yours given, we are just allowing more and more corruption, until one day we wake up with NO RIGHTS.

      In short, your claim that because we all break some law everyday, it’s OK if our government officials do too is unacceptable, weak minded and rather sad. It can only lead to lawlessness, which is alive and well, and in the open at the highest levels of government. If you want to really see whay Liberal policies will achieve, take a hard look at Milwaukee. 5 plus decades (at least) under Democrat political rule, coming to it’s bitter conclusion.

      • In short, your claim that because we all break some law everyday, it’s OK if our government officials do too is unacceptable, weak minded and rather sad

        That’s not what I said. What I said is that we should get rid of the excessive laws.

        Further, the way this law has been applied in the past is only where there’s intent to act against the interests of the US and Comey didn’t find that here. So, suggesting that she should have been charged is saying that we should be especially aggressive to her. Not that we’re letting her off the hook, but rather that she should get extra strict prosecution.

        NO ONE ELSE IN VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED UNLESS THEY WERE TRYING TO LEAK THE DATA. EVER.

        Why does Mrs. Clinton get to be the only one?

        If Mr. 13 were to bring some work home in his bag with no mal-intent other than getting it done more conveniently, he would have committed a similar crime. Should he be prosecuted? Or should he just get canned and lose his clearance? The answer should be the same for both.

        ———

        I noticed that you neither confirmed nor denied having shot a man in Reno….

        • What I said is that we should get rid of the excessive laws.
          Agreed, we have way too many laws and regulations. This may also apply locally, where ordinances are passed and people are fined for breaking them (like the grass is too long). This is a real problem in low income areas.

          The simple fact that Hitlary had classified information in an unsecured location is itself a crime. But let’s look at the real crime against the people. Everything on that server belongs to the people, and by going private, it denied the people their rights under the Freedom of Information Act (this has been documented). That is a violation of RIGHTS, granted by Federal law. That sir, is clearly “Gross Negligence”. (Blatant indifference to one’s legal duty, other’s safety, or their rights are examples.) This is undeniable and Comey was dead ass wrong. He stood up before the people and laid out a very good case to at least bring charges, or send to a Grand Jury. Nothing happened, which a complete injustice to the American people.

          I didn’t shoot anyone in Reno, never been there 😀

          • What do you have to say about Comey’s assertion that no one has ever been charged under this statute unless there was cause to believe they were leaking or planned to leak the data?

            Why does Clinton get to be the only one?

            Or should we go back and retroactively charge the rest of them?

            • I would say that with 33,000 emails having been eliminated that there is probable cause to believe that either something was leaked or was going to be leaked. Let a jury decide. When people LIE, like it has already been proven that she lied, big time, she has something to hide.

              Who are the rest of them? Has anyone else had all this stuff on a private server while conducting classified work? Generally speaking, I don’t think anyone would have classified stuff at home, unless authorized and properly secured, or planning to leak it. Frankly, I think this home server thing is a brand new issue. However, by denying the rights of the people under the Freedom of Information Act, she could have been charged with Gross negligence, as I stated above.

        • As far as the Colonel, leaving a computer on while in the can may not get him legal charges. Having classified documents on his private computer (or server) at home would have had him in jail awaiting charges.

        • NO ONE ELSE IN VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED UNLESS THEY WERE TRYING TO LEAK THE DATA. EVER.

          Has ever been charged under ONE specific law. There are many, many more laws concerning the subject of classified information. Comey was blowing smoke up everyones ass. Like you said we have too many laws. She could have easily been charged under any one of the numerous, excessive laws covering the issues. You want to talk about too many laws, yet only want to consider ONE in this instance. Not very smart of you, yes? 🙂

          • So what you’re saying is that they should have found a way to charge her?

            • They should have charged he Gross Negligence, yes. Probably several counts. Many, many innocent people have been charged and found innocent (George Zimmermen). Others have been found guilty to be exonerated later. Let a jury decide, not bureaucrat who is in her pocket.

              • How do you know he’s in her pocket? He’s a Republican appointee. If he’d recommended charges, he’s be a national hero on the Right. You all’d be throwing him ticker-tape parades.

              • The Obama appointed Attorney General makes that decision, not the Director of the FBI, cops don’t file charges, that falls on District Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys under the DOJ or the State and US AG’s. Comey was a recommendation that should have been ignored. The AG knew what was going to be said, that is so obvious a monkey could see it.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                This was all scripted. Even if Comey recommended charges, Lynch would not have done it. Heck, it was no small coincidence that she runs over to Bills plane day or so,then she recuses herself and puts the burden on Comey about charges….not his job.

  22. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Using precedence as a reason for NOT presecuting is a total cop out.

    In my last job, all work and emails and business or private, internet access, when using the perscribed system, was monitored by company security. A warning of improper use of the system was clearly evident……Hillary could have use one system, ie the State.gov for all her work and personal. There at least controls could be inplace and proper monitoring done. The fact she sent emails through the server to god knows everywhere and anybody, 10’s of thousands opens portals into that system, to be possibly used by persons not intended. Don’t even begin to tell me that all those email recipients had security on their systems worthy of having a gateway into her server. The job prior to the last one, there was NO internet access, much less most of the time the internet didn’t exist, everything was private proprietory networks. NO personal activity was conducted at any time. Strictly business.

    My last 30 years of work, any business document or data record was retained for a minimum of 7 years. Any specific client record was kept as long as the contract with the client was active, then the 7 years were tacked on……just in case of any legal proceedings. The 7 years was not arbitrary. That was the usual lifetime of the product manufactured. My laboratories needed access to all records of any part manufactured, where it went, what card the chip went on, what machine it went into, where it ultimately was sold etc. For every IBM semiconductor site globally, with 10’s of housands of unique part #’s, over 4-5 generations of the technology, with each having 2-5 thousand process steps. Every process record, every process tool and everybody who touched that part at any time.

    Bill with his presidency was lucky when it came to timing. The people of my generation generally started families late because of college then had to have a career 1st, then the ladies said,,,geez I gotta have a kid my biological clock is ticking. That left a huge hole in the workforce creating a huge demand for just about anybody who could walk and chew gum at the same time plus demand huge salaries. The 90’s were great, but then the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s as far as I was concerned was great as far as work was concerned. No lack of it. Good meaningful work…not Staples or walmart. The bulk of the offspring of my generation really hit the work force in the early 2000’s. Outsourcing, us old guys working at great paying jobs caused a now lack of jobs available for the new kids. 60, became the new age for forced retirement, just to get their hands on CHEAPER LABOR.. The volume also drove wages down and also increased requirements because…no job, get another degree, plus also increased debt so now kids are desperate for anything..

  23. They sell you false promises, fantasies of victories that can never occur, banking on your anger after the inevitable disappointment. An example not specifically mentioned by Jossey was the effort to “defund Obamacare” through the House’s “power of the purse.” There was never any practical way to make that happen, and everyone involved in selling the idea knew it — including Senator Ted Cruz. But that was fine, because the point wasn’t to actually end Obamacare. The point was to build lists and raise money on the idea of ending Obamacare.
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/15/pac-operative-confesses-we-killed-the-tea-party/

    • But that was fine, because the point wasn’t to actually end Obamacare. The point was to build lists and raise money on the idea of ending Obamacare.

      You don’t say!

  24. Mathius, Much of our discussion of Hitlary was about the use of her private e-mail server, where as my main comment above was concerning her perjury before Congress. This was then confirmed by Comey in his testimony. I have no faith that anything will actually happen, legally speaking, but here is an article on the letter sent to a U.S. District Attorney: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/15/house-committee-chairmen-lay-case-perjury-hillary-rodham-clinton-u-s-attorney/

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I’m sure you noticed the very carefully use of words in the segment from the above letter

      he, COMEY” stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton’s private server contained classified information clearly marked ‘Confidential.

      To most people quickly reading this statement would feel there were only 3 classified documents on her server…..that is not what he said, he said that onlt three were marked with some classification, not that there were only three containing classified material. The State dept has classified a great deal of the emails on her server after the fact once they were reviewed. Hillary implies that it was not classified information at the time, but subsequently has become such. It was classified then and is classified now and only a well trained lawyer can twist words like her.

      But then most people use text messaging and other social websites and have to truncate words and lose punctuation just to limit the amount of characters used. They usually will never get the fine subtle use of words that politicians and lawyers use to mislead and obfuscate the truth.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      2nd observation……So she did use Bill’s server originally, and was wheedled out of her eventually. That gives totally unauthorized people access to her State Dept work.

  25. We are one major computer malfunction from this happening in the Liberal controlled big cities: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/starving-venezuelans-break-zoo-eat-horse

%d bloggers like this: