Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:21 am

WildCat wrote:Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.


Your incredulity is not a legal standard.

Besides, I feel roughly the same way about most of the shit you post. I have trouble believing it isn't willfully stupid trolling. Yet, my incredulity has no effect on whether that is true.

ETA:

lol

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 31476
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1286 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Grammatron » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:35 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.


Your incredulity is not a legal standard.

Besides, I feel roughly the same way about most of the shit you post. I have trouble believing it isn't willfully stupid trolling. Yet, my incredulity has no effect on whether that is true.

ETA:

lol


Which is a solid reason to not vote WildCat into the office of the president.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:48 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.


Your incredulity is not a legal standard.

Besides, I feel roughly the same way about most of the shit you post. I have trouble believing it isn't willfully stupid trolling. Yet, my incredulity has no effect on whether that is true.

ETA:

lol


Which is a solid reason to not vote WildCat into the office of the president.


Using arguments from incredulity? I can't believe that could be true.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 31476
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1286 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Grammatron » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:12 am

RCC: Act II wrote:Using arguments from incredulity? I can't believe that could be true.


If you believe someone is willfully stupid and trolling.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:28 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Using arguments from incredulity? I can't believe that could be true.


If you believe someone is willfully stupid and trolling.


Trolling by using arguments from incredulity is invalid because I can't understand how they would ever be otherwise.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 30988
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby ed » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:16 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:Tell me where I am going wrong:



The definition for gross negligence that you cited requires that the person violating the standard of care be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it.



And here is where we disagree.

I find it incomprehensible that a person in public service for decades, at the levels she attained, could not "be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it". It beggars the imagination. Unless, of course, hillary is abysmally incompetent. Are you suggesting that counselor? Are you suggesting Hillary has diminished capacity?
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 31476
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1286 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Grammatron » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:48 am

As Doc already covered, Hillary was either lying or incompetent.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:48 am

ed wrote:And here is where we disagree.

I find it incomprehensible that a person in public service for decades, at the levels she attained, could not "be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it". It beggars the imagination. Unless, of course, hillary is abysmally incompetent. Are you suggesting that counselor? Are you suggesting Hillary has diminished capacity?


I don't think we are working off the same facts.

Lack of knowledge about specific things may beggar your imagination, but that is on you.

I've been around enough older people in positions of authority that don't understand computers that it is second nature to me.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64600
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2798 times
Been thanked: 1762 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Doctor X » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:31 am

WildCat wrote:Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.


Well, obviously, normally she would have assumed the e-mail was about her. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:49 am

Doctor X wrote:
WildCat wrote:Hillary told the FBI she thought the "C" on classified material meant "put this in alphabetical order". She clearly lied, yet wasn't charged.


Well, obviously, normally she would have assumed the e-mail was about her. . . .

--J.D.


Okay, I'll address this specific bullshit:

(a)It isn't even an accurate telling given that the "Cs" she was talking about were set off in parentheses in the body of e-mails not properly marked at the top with a "C."

(c)So, every once in a great while, she would run into something that wasn't properly marked as classified (with a C in the subject or at the top) that would a paragraph set off as "(c)", exactly like how in a lot of legal/government stuff some paragraphs are prefaced with (a)... (b)... etc. Keep in mind, the allegation is that this (c) thing happened three (3) times. Which suggests the vast majority of the times she saw (c) it was in fact a paragraph heading.

(b)It wasn't like this was a common thing... but if you were reading something on the understanding that it isn't classified because it isn't marked how it is supposed to be and out of thousands of documents you run across a stray (c) in a document with a lot of (a) and so on.... no, you might not think much of it.

(c) The way WildCat puts it above sounds like an absurd thing to believe because it is absurd. It is the end of a game of telephone among people who probably would believe Hillary is completely made of spiders.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64600
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2798 times
Been thanked: 1762 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Doctor X » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:22 am

Lizard.

She is a Lizard person.

Image

Though they do eat spiders.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64600
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2798 times
Been thanked: 1762 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby Doctor X » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:23 am

Grammatron wrote:Which is a solid reason to not vote WildCat into the office of the president.


He wants to Make America Great Again, Gram.

:freedom:

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 12588
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby WildCat » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:51 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:Tell me where I am going wrong:



I kinda covered this in the sense that there was no intent. The definition for gross negligence that you cited requires that the person violating the standard of care be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it.

There was no evidence of that. There are a lot of theories and suspicions and stuff, but that is what Comey, in the end, was saying.

As to the first one I really don't get the factual references.

So your argument is that Hillary is a complete idiot and never learned how to handle classified information after many years of training and experience?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 12588
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby WildCat » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:58 pm

Meanwhile the House Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena McCabe, Strzok, and Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

Watch for lots of deflection and evasive answers. Maybe they'll even plead the 5th.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ ... dan-299578

Curiously missing is Bill Priestap, Strzok's direct supervisor and McCabe's underling.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:07 pm

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote:Tell me where I am going wrong:



I kinda covered this in the sense that there was no intent. The definition for gross negligence that you cited requires that the person violating the standard of care be fully aware of the standard of care and know they are violating it.

There was no evidence of that. There are a lot of theories and suspicions and stuff, but that is what Comey, in the end, was saying.

As to the first one I really don't get the factual references.

So your argument is that Hillary is a complete idiot and never learned how to handle classified information after many years of training and experience?


Spiders, all the way down.

lol

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:18 pm

WildCat wrote:Meanwhile the House Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena McCabe, Strzok, and Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

Watch for lots of deflection and evasive answers. Maybe they'll even plead the 5th.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ ... dan-299578

Curiously missing is Bill Priestap, Strzok's direct supervisor and McCabe's underling.



They aren't even waiting for the findings before they claim it is a matter of bias. This is... well... not what innocent people do. It is one thing to before the fact doubt the witnesses against you, but to call those doing the investigation biased before you know what they are going to say is really stupid because now if they correctly find nothing happened, it looks like they were coerced.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 12588
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby WildCat » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:57 pm

...
Last edited by WildCat on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 12588
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby WildCat » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:01 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:Meanwhile the House Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena McCabe, Strzok, and Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

Watch for lots of deflection and evasive answers. Maybe they'll even plead the 5th.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ ... dan-299578

Curiously missing is Bill Priestap, Strzok's direct supervisor and McCabe's underling.



They aren't even waiting for the findings before they claim it is a matter of bias. This is... well... not what innocent people do. It is one thing to before the fact doubt the witnesses against you, but to call those doing the investigation biased before you know what they are going to say is really stupid because now if they correctly find nothing happened, it looks like they were coerced.

So if it turned out that police investigating a black man were members of the KKK you'd wait and see what the results of their investigation were before you raised an objection?

Or is that different because reasons? :roll:

And btw, we already know what the results were of their Hillary investigation. They loved Hillary and wanted her to beat Trump, and handled her with kid gloves after granting immunity to co-conspirators and witnesses.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

RCC: Act II
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby RCC: Act II » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:02 am

WildCat wrote:So if it turned out that police investigating a black man were members of the KKK you'd wait and see what the results of their investigation were before you raised an objection?

Or is that different because reasons? :roll:

Yeah, there is a problem with your sense of proportion seeing who was behind putting the lead prosecutor in there, so a closer comparison would be if a few assistant detectives were shown to be racists.

I'm not in the business of helping the police clean up their investigations, so yes, I would wait and see and then make them all look like silly fools once the jury was in the box. Had OJ's team somehow kept Furman off the case, OJ would be in prison.



And btw, we already know what the results were of their Hillary investigation. They loved Hillary and wanted her to beat Trump, and handled her with kid gloves after granting immunity to co-conspirators and witnesses.


So.... the guy nominated by Republicans who declined to press unreasonable charges who then contrary to standard procedure released an investigative report that said a bunch of bad stuff about Hillary and who then, just before the election, said "Wait!!! More Emails!!!" before looking into it and saying no biggie was in the bag for Hillary?

OK.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 12588
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Some Extraordinary Revelations In Congress Yesterday 12/7

Postby WildCat » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:02 am

RCC: Act II wrote:Yeah, there is a problem with your sense of proportion seeing who was behind putting the lead prosecutor in there, so a closer comparison would be if a few assistant detectives were shown to be racists.

What if it was the entire top tier and they had just exonerated a white man of a crime despite loads of evidence of guilt?

RCC: Act II wrote:So.... the guy nominated by Republicans who declined to press unreasonable charges who then contrary to standard procedure released an investigative report that said a bunch of bad stuff about Hillary and who then, just before the election, said "Wait!!! More Emails!!!" before looking into it and saying no biggie was in the bag for Hillary?

OK.
Is a guy nominated years ago by a Republican incapable of supporting Hillary over Trump? Was there some party loyalty test when he was nominated to what is usually a non-political position?

And if this was anyone but Hillary there would have been charged. Ask David Petraeus.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj


Return to “Politics & Social Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bill Gates [Der Bingle], CCBot [Bot], Grammatron, shuize, Ultron [AI] and 0 guests