• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheFatOne

Member
MSNBC going with the fair and balanced approach by going from Hugh Hewitt to Nicolle Wallace

lols my favorite is the cherry picking done by both. Lewit talks about how well respected the FBI director is, but doesn't mention Ryan calling into question his integrity. Wallace picks one point from Trumps response today, but fails to mention how much of a fucking crazy person he looks like with the response. Love it.
 
duFST5


Where's Warren to complete this trifecta?

Someone needs to shop the one face from Jeb to H A Goodman
 
Can someone with a bit of legal knowledge explain why ignorance of the law in this case is different than it would be in the case of other crimes (theft, murder, etc)?

For the record, I'm glad and relieved that she wasn't indicted; I just want to understand the logic better.
 
WTF is with today's polls showing Trump closing the gap.

First NBC/SurveyMonkey, now Morning Consult?

That's actually back to the mean for Morning Consult. June 15-20 they were at 42/40. The most recent poll has only 2000 in the sample, whereas their previous poll had 4000.
 

Tarkus

Member
Statement regarding Clinton emails
Marco Rubio said:
“The FBI concluded what many Americans have known for quite some time, which is that Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State and her mishandling of classified information was disgraceful and unbecoming of someone who aspires to the presidency. There is simply no excuse for Hillary Clinton's decision to set up a home-cooked email system which left sensitive and classified national security information vulnerable to theft and exploitation by America’s enemies. Her actions were grossly negligent, damaged national security and put lives at risk.

Hillary Clinton's actions have sent the worst message to the millions of hard-working federal employees who hold security clearances and are expected to go to great lengths to secure sensitive government information and abide by the rules. They don't take their oaths lightly, and we shouldn't expect any less of their leaders.

Hillary Clinton’s reckless and thoughtless mishandling of classified information is not the end of the story however. It’s only a matter of time before the next shoe drops and the nexus of corruption and controversy that has surrounded Hillary Clinton throughout her time in public office produces yet another scandal for the American people to endure. Given the consequential and challenging times in which we live, America simply cannot afford any more Clinton drama."
 
The polls are going to tighten up until the convention. It's better that the RNC actually thinks he has a chance anyway

Agreed. Keep in mind that the polls showing Trump way behind were after a couple of very bad weeks for him. The past week or two have been somewhat bad for Clinton. Some tightening was inevitable. And the more the GOP is deluded into thinking he has a chance, the less they distance themselves from him.
 
Rubio's response is what I would expect the response to be to maximize effectiveness. Instead Trump talks about Bill and Lynch and sneaking into the FBI
 

Wilsongt

Member
H. A. Goodman
H. A. Goodman – ‏@HAGOODMANAUTHOR

Yes world, some Americans are happy their presidential candidate isn't INDICTED today. There's still time Hillary Bots, we know Clinton well

Now he's just being a prick.
 
It probably does say something that Hillary spent $13M in one week on ads while Trump spent 0 and Hillary got nothing out of it in the polls.

What state and when? Cycles don't necessarily work like that.

Rubio's response is what I would expect the response to be to maximize effectiveness. Instead Trump talks about Bill and Lynch and sneaking into the FBI

Ever had someone that would fuck-up anything?
That's him. You can give him silver and he'll trade for the rights to a ham sandwich.
 

Teggy

Member
Can someone with a bit of legal knowledge explain why ignorance of the law in this case is different than it would be in the case of other crimes (theft, murder, etc)?

For the record, I'm glad and relieved that she wasn't indicted; I just want to understand the logic better.

It doesn't have anything to do with ignorance of the law. The use of the private email server was not illegal. _Knowingly_ using the private email server to send classified material was. It was determined that she never knowingly used it for that purpose (and there is plenty of evidence to show how she made sure to use a secure resource when she was sending classified info), so she was not determined to have broken the law.
 
Can someone with a bit of legal knowledge explain why ignorance of the law in this case is different than it would be in the case of other crimes (theft, murder, etc)?

For the record, I'm glad and relieved that she wasn't indicted; I just want to understand the logic better.

Ignorance of the law is never a defense.

In order to convict someone of a non-strict-liability crime, that person must have something called a mens rea, which is a fancy legal term that basically means some level of intent, and an actus reus, which means a guilty act. For most crimes you need both mens rea and actus reus to convict.

Every crime has a different degree of mens rea required to convict. For example, a murder charge must allege that the killing was done with malice. I am assuming that the mens rea for the espionage act crime requires a "knowingly" mens rea, which means that Hillary must have intended to commit espionage by exposing her emails to foreign hackers. That clearly isn't the case, so no indictment. In fact, it seems that merely exposing emails to the possibility of foreign hacking is not in itself illegal. That means there is no mens rea OR actus reus for Hilldawg.

Knowledge of the law is simply irrelevant. If you steal something and say in your defense that you did not know that stealing was illegal, the prosecutor will laugh at you. If you instead say that you were not aware that the item was not a free sample, for example, you would lack the requisite mens rea for theft.
 
I've had a long standing theory that Goodman is just an actor for the site, trying to make them seem impartial.

Never heard him speak though, in video or what not, so I can't tell if he is legit.
 
Ignorance of the law is never a defense.

In order to convict someone of a non-strict-liability crime, that person must have something called a mens rea, which is a fancy legal term that basically means some level of intent, and an actus reus, which means a guilty act. For most crimes you need both mens rea and actus reus to convict.

Every crime has a different degree of mens rea required to convict. For example, a murder charge must allege that the killing was done with malice. I am assuming that the mens rea for the espionage act crime requires a "knowingly" mens rea, which means that Hillary must have intended to commit espionage by exposing her emails to foreign hackers. That clearly isn't the case, so no indictment. In fact, it seems that merely exposing emails to the possibility of foreign hacking is not in itself illegal. That means there is no mens rea OR actus reus for Hilldawg.

Knowledge of the law is simply irrelevant. If you steal something and say in your defense that you did not know that stealing was illegal, the prosecutor will laugh at you. If you instead say that you were not aware that the item was not a free sample, for example, you would lack the requisite mens rea for theft.

Thanks very much for this! Extremely informative.
 
The beginning of Obama's speech about Unity, NH and the campaigning Hillary did for him in 08 is a pretty clear admonition of Sanders. That part of the speech felt like a reminder that someone hasn't been on the trail, someone isn't playing ball, someone is acting in a way no one else has (since Teddy Kennedy).
 

kirblar

Member
The beginning of Obama's speech about Unity, NH and the campaigning Hillary did for him in 08 is a pretty clear admonition of Sanders. That part of the speech felt like a reminder that someone hasn't been on the trail, someone isn't playing ball, someone is acting in a way no one else has (since Teddy Kennedy).
I hope he waits himself out of a speaking slot.
 
It really is something that takes you aback when you contrast it


God, Obama is a beast on the podium. History, near and far future, is really going to look favorably on him for decades. He might even eclipse JFK in terms of "idol worship"
Hehe you guys are crazy. JFK was an unbelievable speech giver, like mlk level, and died a young martyr. The hopium's getting to yall
 

TheFatOne

Member
Just an fyi TYT starts in 4 min. I know I'm probably one of the only people in poligaf who actually enjoys watching their bullshit, but today is going to be great. I'm betting on a full Cenk meltdown within the first 10 min.
 

Slayven

Member
Just an fyi TYT starts in 4 min. I know I'm probably one of the only people in poligaf who actually enjoys watching their bullshit, but today is going to be great. I'm betting on a full Cenk meltdown within the first 10 min.

Thanks for the heads up, I am in for few minutes
 

Teggy

Member
Did you know that Trump talks to legal scholars all the time?


I can really picture Trump watching the briefing with a huge grin on his face and then suddenly turning white at the conclusion. I sure he honestly thought there was going to be an indictment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom