Umm…he did make a choice. And no, it doesn’t seem wrong at all. Wrong? Huh?

He made a choice and some people don’t like the choice.

So what is wrong??

No.

Nope.

It’s just sad that that’s how politics is nowadays. Liberals will not like anyone Trump could possibly choose, same thing with conservatives and a Democratic president’s nomination.

I don’t know what you mean by “liberals”, but people would be simply correct to assume that after all the terrible incompetent former-corporate & donor appointees Trump has made, to expect more of the same.

If Trump actually appointed someone likable, competent, unbiased, etc., I expect his detractors would be quite happy with the choice.

Brett Kavanaugh is 53 and his opinions on issues such as abortion, gun control and the environment will have far reaching implications for America for perhaps the next 30 years. It’s only natural that people are concerned.

It may also be significant that Brett Kavanaugh argued in a 2009 article that presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations and civil lawsuits while in office. Perhaps Trump had this in mind when making his choice.

“perhaps”

I feel sick..

It still has to go through the senate, doesn’t it?

Did nobody else read the question was “before” he made a choice? They evidently criticized his choice before it was made. Did that seem wrong? No; it was very predictable and annoying.

The question was asked an hour ago. Trump announced his nomination yesterday.

Oh @seawulf575, you can’t be surprised! They’d protest Trump appointing Hillary at this point…haha

I think that all four of the “top dogs” that were in the running had been named and were well known before yesterday. All of them represented a conservative professional history and judicial background. None of them can be considered moderate in the least.

Trump had the option to pick a middle-of-the-road judge and try to gain universal acclaim for his choice. He decided to divide the country even more and play to his base.

It isn’t the least bit surprising people were criticizing the nominees – they were/are all unacceptable to large, even a majority of the US population.

I’m curious about what @seawulf575 is really suggesting – that it’s in some way unpatriotic to be critical of a choice the president is about to make? That’s scary.

It is a learned response. The conservative movement began using this tactic in earnest about the time Gingrich took the reins.

Imagine this:
I am about to force feed you something, but I have yet to decide between feeding you a dog turd, a cow patty, or a bowl of hot diarrhea, with pieces of wriggling tapeworm in it.
Is it wrong for you to be disgusted before I make my choice?

wrong? It isn’t illegal. instead of wrong, how about irrelevant?

We would not protest Trump nominating Hillary or anyone with some moral decency and concern for the American people and women’s rights.

@flutherother ”. Perhaps Trump had this in mind when making his choice.” Ya think?

Kennedys son worked for DeutschBank during the period that they gave Trump over a Billion $ in loans. This was when no other bank would lend him any more cash. They also have been in trouble for money laundering Russian funds (Hmmm… Coincidence??)

After leaving the bank he became head of LNR Properties that went on to help restructure and bail out Jared Kushner in a Manhattan deal gone bad to the tune of over a billion.

If either of these come up in the Mueller Investigation and the investigation goes to the SC then Kennedy would have had to recuse himself leaving the court with a possible 4–4 tie vote. Trump needed to both get rid of this potential Kennedy problem and ensure a conservative lapdog majority on the court.

@Dutchess_III If Trump wanted her, I guarantee you someone would be very skeptical. Don’t buy that for one second.

Of course it’s wrong. Everyone knows you need permission from Dear Leader to protest anything he does any anyone he nominates for anything. I mean these people are private citizens. It’s not like we know the history of their legal decisions. It’s not like they have published opinions and ruled in cases. How can we even begin to understand any legal opinions they may have? What are people thinking?

@Aster, not given his short list that he said he was choosing from it was not.

@KNOWITALL If you could give me an example of a very good, intelligent pick for any office that Trump has made, and the liberals screamed about it, I’d be more inclined to listen to you. As it is his typical choices are self promoting disasters. Scott Pruitt is an example: “By July 2018, Pruitt was under at least 14 separate federal investigations by the Government Accountability Office, the EPA inspector general, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, and two House committees over his spending habits, conflicts of interests, extreme secrecy, and management practices. Pruitt made frequent use of first class travel as well as frequent charter and military flights. As EPA administrator, Pruitt leased a condo in Washington D.C. at a deeply discounted rate from a lobbyist whose clients were regulated by the EPA.”

They are ALL shady like that. All of them. If they aren’t, Trump gets rid of them.

@Dutchess_III Nah, not worth my research time, just stating my opinion.

I do wish you would give concrete examples of how you come to your opinions.

^^No need to do research to inform your opinions, dontcha know?

The question isn’t if you like this choice. The question is whether the protesters that were staging protests before an announcement was made was wrong. To me it seems that their hatred of Trump is all that matters to them, not the selection for SCOTUS. There were groups that were organizing protests days before the announcement.

@elbanditoroso I am suggesting not that it is unpatriotic to protest a selection. I am suggesting it might be staged and downright stupid to protest before a selection is made. All it really says is that it doesn’t matter who he selects, it won’t be right for these protesters. They just want to protest Trump. Seems staged to me.

There is an established history of the Orangutan appointing nothing but crooks and shills.
Case in point:
The replacement for Pruitt, an oil shill, to lead the EPA, is a coal lobbyist.

@seawulf575: “All it really says is that it doesn’t matter who he selects, it won’t be right for these protesters. ”

Go on…

In all seriousness, you are aware that the shortlist was a list of well-known fuckers that were all shit, right?

You can be suspicious about whatever “protest” you saw on Fox News that has you rubbing your chin, but the fact is that Kavanaugh is a disaster for many reasons – especially for workers. So, expect to see more of these “protests”. What you may be witnessing is the last breath of the American working and middle class.

If any shit-liberal Democrat is even considering voting on this, they should be imprisoned along with every single Republican.

THIS SAYS IT ALL: https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-nomination-of-fill-in-the-blank-to-the-supreme-court-means-really-bad-things/

So the right would’ve been all like “let’s patiently wait and see who Hillary chooses. Who knows, we might support them!” Bull. Shit.

No, not after the fuss the Republicans made over Obama’s last pick.

@kritiper or more importantly, the conspiracy of the Republicans to keep Obamas pick from even getting the courtesy of a vote.

So on the idea of making a stink over Obama’s SCOTUS picks, I’ve attempted to research and have been unable to find….where were the protests of Kagan or Sotomayor before they were picked? Where were the protests after they were picked? It wasn’t until they were actually on the bench that you find protests from the right. And that was over Ginsburg and Kagan not recusing themselves from the Obergefell case as they should have IAW the rules of ethics for justices. So yes, @Demosthenes the right would have been patiently waiting for Hillary’s choices…it is a proven thing. And @kritiper there was no protests before or after Obama’s picks.
But this shows protests were planned days before the pick was made and college students already knew all about the choices voting records and opinions before that choice was made.

It amazes me that Trump fans are so puzzled that he is subjected to perpetual protest. It is almost irrelevant whether he deserves it or not. The plain truth is that it would be difficult to name another public figure so dead set on projecting the aura of a despicable human being. The man is without tact, has no sense of propriety, goes out of his way to create hostility at the drop of a hat, and sports so many chips on his shoulders that he is best described as a walking monument to arrogant belligerence. Considering his personality and his nonstop rattling of ceaseless insults and aggressive threats, his supporters should be thankful that the cowardly bully is confronted in the main with mere peaceful protests.

@stanleyb Who is puzzled? I think most of the US, if not the world, knows Trumps picks will be scorned, valid or not. This isn’t a surprise to anyone.

Most of the world also knows the Orangutan’s picks will be shit.

I think he meant that Trump fans don’t understand WHY he would be subjected to so much derision and protest. Hell, even England’s in on it.

@Dutchess_III I know, don’t even get me started on that. I expected a little more class from the Brits.

They give him more than he deserves.

I think it’s hilarious.

It sure is
Still looks more diginified than the Orangutan itself.

@seawulf575 “And @kritiper there was no protests before or after Obama’s picks.
But this shows protests were planned days before the pick was made and college students already knew all about the choices voting records and opinions before that choice was made.”

Because liberal students are intelligent and informed. I doubt many Republican students could even name all of the current supreme court justices.

Is it flying to day @ragingloli?

I agree that liberals are generally more protest-happy than conservatives, but there’s no way they would have been open-minded about Hillary’s pick if she were president. No way in hell. And they would’ve tried to stop whomever she chose from being confirmed any way they could.

Yeah. It seems like conservatives lean toward violence and threats, rather than peaceful protest. As a liberal I’d have to see who Hillary would have chosen before I could decided whether I agree with her choice or not. We are quite as blindly combative as conservatives are.

@Stache Did you read the article I linked? Your brilliant liberal students had all sorts of opinions on President Trump’s pick for SCOTUS. They just were oblivious to the FACT that no nomination had been made. So please, don’t try touting their intelligence. They are brainwashed.

@seawulf575 we both know that is bullshit (well, at least one of us anyway). Trump had decided on Kavanaugh several weeks ago because his views would save Trumps ass if it ever got to the impeachment stage. He even went back on his pledge to nominate one of the original 20 put forth by Federalist Society by adding Kavanaugh and four other decoys to the final list. Funny thing is that nobody from the original list made the cut. Hmmmmm. Kinda odd that.

* aren’t * quite as blindly conservatives.

@Dutchess_III I guess you would have to ask the tough question then…which group, conservatives or liberals, have staged more disruptive protests that have ended in violence? I’ll give you a hint…it isn’t the conservatives. In fact, if you look at all the calls for violence, riots, actual physical attacks and the like, most are from liberals. So while you are trying to claim the higher ground, you might want to look at some facts first. Even the Charlottesville debacle would never have happened if the liberals didn’t show up for an illegal protest. No, I’m not saying the idiot neo-nazis or skin heads were blameless. But they had gotten permits for a protest. It was the BLM and Antifa that showed up without a permit and started shouting and causing problems. So they most definitely are not blameless. If they had not shown up, the idiot white supremacists would have protested and then left to go drink some beer and act like morons somewhere else. No one in this country would have given two hoots for them…they wouldn’t even have made the news. But you can go through the list and find that liberals and the groups that support the liberal agenda have pushed more violence than any other group in our country in recent history.

Sure. To say ‘no’ before there is a nominee is moronic.

@rojo President Trump may have considered Kavenaugh before hand. If I remember right, though, he just interviewed him a couple days before the announcement. And your whole statement about impeachment is total hogwash. The SCOTUS has really nothing to do with Impeachment. The House of Representatives would bring the motion and vote on it. If they get the majority, the president is impeached. Then the motion moves to the Senate. If ⅔ of the voting senators support the impeachment, the POTUS is convicted. Please note that no where in there is the SCOTUS involved. The only way the SCOTUS gets involved is maybe to make a decision on which article applied to the removal of the POTUS or to issue an order for the POTUS to vacate, if he refused after being convicted. Putting Kavenaugh on the SCOTUS would do nothing to cover President Trump’s ass in impeachment. It is a sad statement that I have to explain how the things you think you know about actually work.

”.... no where in there is the SCOTUS involved. The only way the SCOTUS gets involved is….” So which is it? They are not involved or they are? Why do you get to have it both ways? You have not really explained anything.

And as you indicated the danger lies in having someone like Kavanaugh, someone who is deferential toward the presidency and executive privilege on the court, should questions arise regarding legal aspects of the investigation.
One possible scenario, regardless of Trumps bombastic remarks about wanting to appear before the investigating committee, we are all well aware that his lawyers will not allow this to happen so the next step would be a subpoena, which will then be challenged in, what?, that’s right, a court and because of the high profile it will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh will be of the opinion that Trump does not have to abide by it, so will the other four conservative judges, leading to a 5–4 decision in Trumps favor.

@seawulf575 The aliens from outer space have been the most violent political faction, and they are all republicans.

@rojo I was perfectly clear and I suspect you know it. I know how hard it is for you to admit you were wrong, though.

@Dutchess_III I think you have been hanging around @ragingloli too long. I expected more from you.

Just doing what you do, @seawulf575. Throwing out ridiculous claims with absolutely NOTHING to back them up.

So @seawulf575 rather than try to unravel your claim that SCOTUS is NOT involved but yet IS involved in any possible upcoming impeachment you are just going to claim that it makes perfect sense and just resort to insults.

Ok. Then let us move on.

@rojo You are being perfectly obtuse. The SCOTUS does not get involved with the actual impeachment process. They have no say in whether a president gets impeached or not. Their purpose is one of counselor (determining which article of the Constitution applies) or enforcement (issuing a court order to force the president to step down once impeached). It was perfectly obvious the first time I wrote it and you were W-R-O-N-G in your claim that President Trump chose Kavanaugh to “save his ass” from impeachment. Yes, you were wrong. You can say it. You didn’t know what you were talking about. It’s okay….go ahead…it might make you feel better to admit it. Nah…your a liberal. You can never admit that.

Nope, I stand by it. Kavanaugh was put in the court to cover Trumps ass more than for his conservative credentials. There were more conservative candidates out there but Kavanaugh said what Trump wanted to hear about executive privilege. I will go as far as to say, however, that I could also have been clearer in my post. But then again, I was not the only one who could have been was I?

They have some power over impeachment laws @seawulf575. They can control the reasons why a president can be impeached, and reasons why they can’t.

Clearly, Trump prefers a court least inclined to render opinions highlighting the fact that he is a fool. The entirety of the Republican Congress as well as the bulk of the conservative movement now rolls along, ass over teakettle on the bet that the fact can be ignored. As the mass of proof piles up, those supportng the dummy no longer bother to defend the speech or behavior of their embarrassing champion or even counter the contention that he is indeed a fool. They’re trapped.

@Dutchess_III They actually have no power over the impeachment laws. Or at least they aren’t supposed to have. The only way they might interfere is if congress decided unanimously to impeach a president because of something stupid like he jaywalked. Upon challenge by the president the SCOTUS might determine that jaywalking does not constitute High Crimes or Misdemeanors. But those terms are not very specific so a lot of latitude is given to Congress to determine if an action by the president is a crime worthy of impeachment. So barring something like Maxine Waters’ efforts to impeach Trump without having a specific crime to base it on, the SCOTUS would have no say so. Also, the SCOTUS doesn’t get a say in impeachment unless there is some challenge. That is why we have the three legs of our government. The congress makes and amends laws. The POTUS executes the laws and enforces them, and the SCOTUS rules on interpretation. Over the past couple decades, and particularly in the past decade, those lines have been blurred. Obama rewriting laws, SCOTUS making laws….these things are offensive. But if Congress goes to impeach President Trump, they don’t ask SCOTUS to support or refute them. SCOTUS doesn’t get to offer an opinion. If the president were to object to the basis, it could become a court case, but generally the SCOTUS will not interfere.

The Constitution doesn’t give the President immunity from prosecution and he or she is subject to ordinary criminal processes. If Mueller’s team find evidence that the President has obstructed justice for example then he could be charged with that offence. Such a move would very likely lead to a legal challenge that ends up before the Supreme Court. It would clearly be helpful to Trump to have a Supreme Court justice who believes he should be immune from prosecution.

Impeachment leads only to removal from office and requires a two thirds majority of the Senate. That could be very messy and divisive.

Thank you @flutherother.

Then there’s the fact that Trump will so dependably do or say something so egregious daily that it is guaranteed to drive people into the streets. He is the only President in my lifetime GUARANTEED to have some folks somewhere protesting round the clock.

@flutherother you are correct that the Constitution does not give the President immunity from prosecution. However to get there, impeachment is the first step. @rojo made the statement “Trump had decided on Kavanaugh several weeks ago because his views would save Trumps ass if it ever got to the impeachment stage. ” I called bullshit on that. The SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment. Even for any potential criminal prosecution that might happen, the SCOTUS is not the first stop. The first stop would be a federal court. After that, an appeals court. After that, maybe the SCOTUS, though to be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t picture it getting that far unless both the trial and the appeal were so ridiculously scammed that it was an obvious frame up. I don’t picture that. Remember, the SCOTUS does not have to hear all cases anyway. By the time the appeals made their way to the SCOTUS, years would have gone by. The VP would probably already have pardoned him. That’s what happened with NIxon…Ford pardoned him before he even went to trial. So even if impeachment were to happen to President Trump, it is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS would be involved anyway.

@stanleybmanly only because the left are loons. President Trump has done some good things for the country with his presidency. He has an annoying personality and gets childish sometimes. He has certainly done nothing illegal. But really, it is the left that is totally out of control. Even the Dems are starting to recognize that their party is turning into radical leftists that only want to rebel and obstruct. Even when President Trump has done exactly what the left said he should do, they fought against him.

All well and good, but this morning the crowd of people protesting Trump in London exceeded 200,000 people. How many democrats do you suppose turned out for that one? And you wouldn’t know a radical leftist from a manhole cover. There’s nothing radical about picketing or protesting.

From the sound of it he just made a total fool of himself in Brittan. He just doesn’t have what it takes. I think Melania does, if you don’t ask too much of her, but he’s a buffoon.

Melania also keeps her mouth shut, a policy directly opposed to Trump’s approach “....or speak and remove all doubt”

@seawulf575 Impeachment is not necessarily the first step in criminal proceedings against the President. The President is not beyond the criminal law even if he is not impeached. That is what Kavanaugh has argued should be changed and may be why Trump chose him.

Melania lets her clothes do the talking.

@flutherother the Constitution doesn’t give specifics, but does hint that impeachment would be the first act. That would be the cleanest way of passing power to the VP. But in some cases, such as murder it might be the right thing to arrest first. But let’s be honest here…President Trump has done nothing worthy of impeachment, much less arrest.

Hahaha hahahahaha!!!

Trump is indeed fortunate that ineptitude is not a criminal offense, but that doesn’t excuse those of us prepared to accept and encourage a visibly consistent fool as Commander in Chief. The willingnes of so many of us to bet that the nation might benefit through ignoring the fact that there is an idiot at the wheel cannot be consistent with a healthy democracy.

And for the record, @Dutchess_III laughter and @stanleybmanly opinion are not the basis for criminal charges.

His collusion with Russia is.

@ragingloli and there is no collusion so I guess that’s out as well.

There totally is.

@ragingloli ^ ‘Cause the colluder said there is no collusion’

And the rapist said the rape was consensual.

Okay children, if there is collusion, why isn’t there any charges? Even Mueller has said Americans weren’t involved. So other than in your desperate hopes, where is the crime? Oh yeah, don’t forget…collusion is not a crime except in antitrust laws. So dream on, but please understand how desperate and irrational you sound.

Wait . . .Wait . . . WAIT !

Paul Manafort will be taking Opera lessons at his new jail, Alexandria Detention Center.

~ ~ ~ ~Is he from Mars or some other alien location.

The question of why there aren’t any collusion charges is the sort of question a prudent man might ask when the proceedings have ended. As it is, the “witch hunt” has resulted in more indictments than you can shake a stick at. And everyone (well nearly everyone) knows the drill. When you bust up a ring of criminals, isn’t the kingpin traditionally saved for last?

And more speculation comes out. Paul Manafort will sing, saving the best for last. Sad. None of the indictments have come anywhere near pointing towards any criminal activities by President Trump. It’s time to admit the witch hunt is a big nothing burger, just like Van Jones said.

I surround myself with criminals then appoint many of them to key positions in my campaign for President. The Russians notify me that I’m their choice for President and are prepared to facilitate that goal through sleazy endeavors in keeping with my proven business history. Next, in a surpising coincidence, virtually the entirety of the upper echelon of my campaign organization just happens at one time or another to find themselves in Russia hobnobing clandestinely with Russian apparatchiks. And then there’s the other coincidence that for years my real estate endeavors have become increasingly dependent on the largesse of many of these same kleptocrats drawn to the tacky whore house opulence distinguishing my tastes along with the fact that legitimate lenders have learned through painful experience that I’m not to be trusted with their money. So the “witch hunt” commences with me (in spite of my rather glaring character flaws) loudly protesting my innocence, while the smarter folks among my appointees recuse themselves. Now the indictments roll out with factory regularity, as the “witch hunt” knocks off one after another of my top appointees, but I myself of course am innocent. There’s a lot to speculate on.

@stanleybmanly isn’t it funny that when you put together coincidences like that on the Clintons that the liberals complain about witch hunts and partisan posturing? Conspiracy theories? In the end, all you have is speculation. The indictments have shown nothing involving the president at all. The indictments on his campaign people involved things that happened 10 years ago. The ones on the Russians have had the attachment on the announcements that no Americans were involved. So what do you have? Not much at all involving collusion with Russia. And again…collusion is not a charge. You would have to first prove collusion, which hasn’t even come close to being done, and then you would have to follow that to some actual crime. Sorry boys, it is time to admit that it is all smoke and mirrors. It is a vain attempt to give some legitimacy to Hillary and to discredit Trump. A sad, lame attempt by liberals is all it really is. Though it has been useful in showing just how partisan some of our intelligence agencies had become under Obama.

It’s a “witch hunt” when there is absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing, as in Hillary’s case. Mueller’s investigation is turning up multiple instances of wrong doing concerning the 2016 election, therefore it is not a witch hunt.

@seawulf575 I make no claim that the Clintons have been exonerated. I DO claim that you have less claim of Trump’s exoneration in the MIDDLE of his investigation. Once he is cleared, then talk to us about his unwarranted persecution.

@Dutchess_III there indeed has been much evidence of wrong doing in Hillary’s cases. Watergate, Whitewater, Trooper gate (for Bill), Benghazi, emails….all had evidence. And the emails one shows the political bias of the Obama justice department. They admitted she mishandled classified materials and have found many that were out of her control altogether. But they tried adding a proviso to the law that doesn’t exist….the intent. She was extremely careless in her handling was what they said, but she didn’t mean to lose control of the classified materials. But if you go back to the law, negligence is grounds for guilt. Nothing about intent. So she was indeed guilty, there was a ton of evidence for it, yet nothing happened to her. That is called corruption.

@stanleybmanly so your stance is guilty until proven innocent. Got it.

NO that is exactly YOUR stance with the Clintons who are NOT under investigation and whose myriad of investigations yielded not a single indictment against anyone-zero-zilch-nothing!!

Rumors and gossip is seriously not “evidence.”

@seawulf575 And this is the second time you have raised the truly asinine assertion that intent is irrelevant in the commission of a crime. The only hope you right wing dummies ever had of stringing Hillary up on that nebulous email nonsense was a charge of deliberate criminal negligence.

@stanleybmanly when the law plainly states that intent is irrelevant, then yes, it applies. And the only one being asinine is the one denying wrongdoing on the part of his queen.

And when hundreds of classified emails were found on her email server that had been sent out to people that weren’t cleared to have the material and even ended up getting sent on again (see the Weiner laptop) that is known in the real world as evidence. I understand it doesn’t hold water in liberal land when it applies to a liberal elite, but in the real world it is important.

Yeah, and Hillary was running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint. It’s all made up bullshit @seawulf575.

I’ll tell you what isn’t made up bullshit is the fact that Trump committed an act of treason this morning. How do you feel about that?

@seawulf575 where does the law plainly state that intent is irrelevant?

@stanleybmanly it plainly states that if you mishandle classified materials regardless of cause it is a violation. It doesn’t have to be purposeful. Negligence is specifically stated as being in violation of the law. So yes, she broke the law and the corrupt Obama justice department refused to prosecute her. And now liberal morons are trying to say she did nothing wrong. How screwed up is that? And just so you don’t have to hurt yourself looking it up, here is a link. Look at item (f). That pretty much says it all. But I know that is too much truth and fact for you to deal with so I really don’t expect you to look at the link. Because to look at it would mean you would have admit I was right about the law. If that is so, the you would have to say Hillary broke the law. But you will find some way to dodge it.

all I get from your link is the announcement “page not found”

Same here ^^^

“If you mishandle classified materials regardless of cause, is a violation”. That’s fine, but it does NOT mean that you will be convicted for mishandling those materials if you are unaware that you are doing so. And that is almost certainly the reason prosecution of Hillary was eliminated. The burden of proof for the government was just impossible to meet. You can argue that she should have known better, and she was severely criticized for screwing up. But if you look at her behavior on bumbling along out in the open, concealing nothing, it’s obvious that she was just another senior citizen clueless in security protocols.

Let’s try it the old school way. Not sure why the link didn’t work.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Tested and checked.

@stanleybmanly check out the law instead of going on what you want to believe. Her handling (mishandling) of classified materials was punishable up to 10 years in prison. The burden of proof on the government was to prove she mishandled classified materials. They proved that hundreds of times. Plenty of proof. Intent means nothing. If intent were the overriding item in criminal prosecution, think of all the criminals that would get off because “they didn’t mean for it to happen”. Guy rapes a woman….didn’t mean for it to be rape, thought she was willing. Guy kills someone…didn’t mean to kill them, just wanted to scare them. And in her position as Sect of State, to claim she didn’t know how to properly handle classified materials is ludicrous. She has been an attorney, she has been involved with the state and federal governments. She knew better.

I checked out the link, looking for anything stating or implying irrelevance of intent. I found no such wording, but came across several passages stating or implying the exact opposite. “whoever with the intent or reason…” appears in the top 4 lines of all that lengthy verbiage. When you read further, you will find words like knowingly prefacing qualifiers for criminal behavior.

But here’s the deal, and the actual reason you should avoid debasing yourself through adherence to the nincompoop right wing blogosphere.

At some point, this jihad of running Hillary to ground must be recognized for what it is—a genuine witch hunt. There are credible conservatives who bought into the harangue against Hillary, and most of them have taken a crack at her through mounting and pursuing the blizzard of investigations raining down on both Clintons. And the best that came of it was the single crime on the part of her silly husband—lying about a blow job. There comes a time when even pursuit of an individual for political purposes becomes so blatantly obvious, that those persisting must be recognized for the crackpots they are. By the way, did you see that the “walk away” campaign was an effort formulated and pushed by the Russians? Anyway, as things are proceeding with the current President, comparisons to his treatment with that of Hillary or Obama become increasingly pointless. And the howling of your wingnut tutors is less annoying than just plain silly. You can join them in the comforting but vacuous belief that Clinton and Obama escape convictions and disgrace solely through corruption, or see the issue as it is.

@stanleybmanly you are again being purposely obtuse. You are avoiding. I even told you where to look. Here, I will now cut and paste it here so you can’t claim you didn’t see it:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Yep…intent means nothing. Gross negligence is enough. And it is exactly this wording that Comey was trying to avoid when he changed his announcement from “Hillary exhibited Gross Negligence…” to “Hillary exhibited extreme carelessness.” if he had used the term Gross Negligence, the whole world would have jumped on this exact violation. Instead he tried taming it down and claiming intent. As you can plainly see (well, as someone that is honest can plainly see) intent is not in play. She should still have been up for a heavy fine and/or jail time.

What blog did you get the Hillary mail server explanation from @seawulf575 ?

Try this. See if any of his phrases match.

Hm. Well. She was subjected to the full weight of our legal system and passed with flying colors. Just because you disagree with the verdict does’t make her guilty.

I think if you are a Rush the coke snorter follower is does.

@Dutchess_III she was subjected to a corrupted weight of our legal system and passed with flying colors. As we are seeing now, there were people that worked very hard to protect her so she wouldn’t get in trouble. It was that important to them that she run for president. If she faced the full weight of the legal system, there wouldn’t have been a created “intent clause” to give her an out.

Oh, and yes, @Dutchess_III, that link will indeed show all my phrases. I cut and pasted it. I listed it as my citation. It is from a respected law school. If you like, you could also go to the actual USC on the government website and it will tell you the same thing. I have looked them up and compared. @Tropical_Willie is just trying to be smarmy.

You didn’t post that link. I did. I posted the link FOR you @seawulf575. Here

@seawulf575 the reason Comey “tamed down” the claim of gross negligence to extreme catelessness had nothing to do with any conspiratorial attempt to let Hillary off the hook. The terminology was chosen on recognition of the difficulty in PROVING a charge of gross negligence.

@Dutchess_III I appreciate your effort to help, but I did post the link after my first attempt failed.

@stanleybmanly There was no issue with proving there was gross negligence. The evidence was there. The emails that contained classified materials including some up to and exceeding top secret were found where they shouldn’t have been, being sent to people that didn’t have the clearance to see them. There are two ways they could get there. She could have sent them knowingly or unknowingly. Knowingly shows intent to violate the law. Unknowingly shows gross negligence. Either way is a violation of that statute. No accident that she was not charged. It was purposely done because of a corrupt Obama DoJ.

So you believe the case open & shut? Why hasn’t the Trump DOJ and the Republican Congress hauled her up on charges? After awhile, you folks begin to sound silly. And people who take this stuff seriously wind up cataloged with birthers and alien abduction enthusiasts. If there was any chance in hell of Hillary’s conviction, do you seriously believe that the current Congress would give her a pass?

Remember, Trump was going to hire a special prosecutor just to hunt her down.

Yeah and that nonsense speaks to the credibility of this entire exercise. The wulf busy gobbling up ridiculous blogosphere nonsense oblivious to even the suspicion that he should be embarrassed to admit it.

Something I find quite interesting is how the ultra paranoid conservatives are taking the liberal arguments and twisting them around to fit their agenda. A couple of them were having some deep discussion on a thread I happened to be following, because I’m actually friends with one of them. I can’t even remember what they were discussing, but one said, “Well, the dumbing down of the liberals is working! It’s been really evident since Trump was elected.”
What?

I think Trump getting elected accelerated it.

@Dutchess_III
“Well, the dumbing down of the liberals conservatives is working! It’s been really evident since Trump was elected.”

What?

There is one thing that the election of the Orangutan prove me wrong about:
Before him, I thought conservatives could hardly get any dumber.
Man oh man, was I wrong.

It was a couple of conservatives talking @Tropical_Willie. No, it made no sense, of course. They’re just using the catch phrases the liberals use, and with good reason. From the mouths of conservatives it just sounds ridiculous.

Fourth grade babble, I understand !
Someone keeps change his speech writers and tweeter posters and down the toilet it goes.

Wait until tomorrow now he has tweeted Putin is coming to the White House. Reversal to come !