Presidential Elections

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
eyephone said:
FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hil...minal-charges-against-hillary-clinton-n603926
Click to expand...
Not sure what charges exactly would be filed.  If she was in the military, I'm pretty sure there would be charges.  It's the sort of thing that should lose you your security clearances, though. 

Also, it's a sign of poor decision making.  She was clearly knowingly not following the rules.  It cost the taxpayers a lot of money to investigate. 
 
Her answers were just like slick Willy.  Learned it from the best.  I didn't lie... errrr lie like that!  Change of wording in her answers. 
 
Her opposition found a case that's quite similar...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2...ing-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

Basically, someone else got 2 years probation + $7500 fine + loss of security clearances and job.

So for Clinton, her punishment should probably be something like 2 years probation + a huge fine.  A violation of probation would probably equal jail time, I assume. 

The huge fine would help cover some of the costs of the investigation.  Since she has either been an elected official or an appointed official taking away the security clearances probably wont happen.  Also, she will continue to get elected positions or appointments so a loss of a job probably wont happen.  Of course, nobody should be appointing her or electing her to those positions if she breaks rules, violates protocol, and can't be trusted.

Here's what will happen, though.  It will all be played off as if she did nothing wrong and she has been proven innocent.
 
spootieho said:
Her opposition found a case that's quite similar...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2...ing-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

Basically, someone else got 2 years probation + $7500 fine + loss of security clearances and job.

So for Clinton, her punishment should probably be something like 2 years probation + a huge fine.  A violation of probation would probably equal jail time, I assume. 

The huge fine would help cover some of the costs of the investigation.  Since she has either been an elected official or an appointed official taking away the security clearances probably wont happen.  Also, she will continue to get elected positions or appointments so a loss of a job probably wont happen.  Of course, nobody should be appointing her or electing her to those positions if she breaks rules, violates protocol, and can't be trusted.

Here's what will happen, though.  It will all be played off as if she did nothing wrong and she has been proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Comey distinguished this case in his testimony, if you're interested in facts/truth.
 
eyephone said:
My thoughts: judges should not make comments which shows bias.
Click to expand...
My problem with her is that she takes that bias to the bench.  At times, she has acted like an activist that thinks she can legislate from the bench.  It's been much more apparent lately since Sotomayor arrived.  Take the Puerto Rico case, which was a 5-2 decision.  Both Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted against existing law because of their personal feelings.  As kind hearted and empathetic as they were, they are not supposed to behave that way.
 
spootieho said:
eyephone said:
My thoughts: judges should not make comments which shows bias.
Click to expand...
My problem with her is that she takes that bias to the bench.  At times, she has acted like an activist that thinks she can legislate from the bench.  It's been much more apparent lately since Sotomayor arrived.  Take the Puerto Rico case, which was a 5-2 decision.  Both Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted against existing law because of their personal feelings.  As kind hearted and empathetic as they were, they are not supposed to behave that way.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say you don't have a poli sci undergrad degree, much less a juris doctor.

I only say that, because these comments sound like the typical drivel we hear pouring from the mouths of talking heads on TV/radio. Nearly every judicial decision made results in "legislation from the bench." Precedents are set when decisions are made applying law to complicated facts.

So saying you don't like "legislation from the bench" is the equivalent of saying, "I don't support any judicial determinations when folks can't agree to settle disputes." What is the alternative?
 
Why don't you try to honestly critically think about it.  Try not using logical fallacies.  You used a few logical fallacies in your response.

But your response is somewhat expected as people get hyper defensive whenever someone brings up "legislating from the bench".

How am I to have a conversation with you when you have no intent to give honest consideration to the conversation?
 
Perspective said:
So, it's a "logical fallacy" that judicial decisions result in legal precedent that is in fact "law"?
Click to expand...
Now this is getting ironic.  And now you just committed another logical fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top