OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[Johnny N.]

while i would very much like to see hillary held to the law, i also doubt whether anything will actually stick to her.
if the FBI actually had uncovered serious violations of the national security act, she'd be in handcuffs by now.
her statement that "she never had anything on her server that was MARKED classified", doesn't mean that it wasn't classified or would be very soon.
there will be some people 'blamed' for sloppy work, but i doubt anyone will go to jail, and certainly not hillary.
the clinton machine have their hands around a lot of very powerful throats, and she's not going down for anything.
and besides, the legions of clinton apparatchiks would never believe their 'savior' would do anything wrong.

I think you are probably right on all points. The frustrating thing to me and I assume most average people with jobs is that if it were any of us making the equivalent mistake in our jobs we would no longer be employed yet she will likely be a nominee for President. Really just shows how screwed up it all is. Not that there is much respect left for the position but this doesn't help.

 

[Flamencology]

and......3 or 4 GENERATIONS later.......

True. We won't have to deal with the Middle East for another half-century.

 

[mongooz]

I think you are probably right on all points. The frustrating thing to me and I assume most average people with jobs is that if it were any of us making the equivalent mistake in our jobs we would no longer be employed yet she will likely be a nominee for President. Really just shows how screwed up it all is. Not that there is much respect left for the position but this doesn't help.

when you have enough money and influence....you can get away with murder......oh ......wait
(vince foster)

 

[335clone]

Capitalists, socialists, and the great unwashed have nothing to do with Sanders' not having the slightest chance. The super delegates in the Democratic party will decide, and the vast majority of them have said they'll cast their ballot for Clinton from day 1. I love rooting for Bernie, and I think it is great he's getting the younger generation interested, but ultimately, he never had a shot.

I don't disagree. Unless of course Hil gets indicted....Then what will the dem machine do?

 

[wagdog]

3. Reagan had fuck all to do with the hostage release, other than the fact that the Ayatollah was as certain of Reagan's unpredictable cowboy recklessness as he was that Carter wasn't going to nuke them. Basically, fear of the unknown, the wild card in a cowboy hat being inaugurated was what got them released.

So, um, what you're saying here is that Reagan had everything to do with them being released.

I'm sorry man, but as I remember these events, the general feeling was that the hostage situation was going to resolved on day 1 of Reagan's term in office, one way or the other. Was it cowboy recklessness? Maybe.

 

[Tig]

 

[bsman]

when you have enough money and influence....you can get away with murder......oh ......wait
(vince foster)

I think the theory aliens killed Vince Foster has at least as much credence...

 

[jp_nyc]

I don't disagree. Unless of course Hil gets indicted....Then what will the dem machine do?

Hillary isn’t going to get indicted. The notion that she might be is just political theater and bad journalism. In the greater scheme of classified information handling screwups what she and the Department of State did rates a conversation with the site security officer and a few extra questions during the next regular polygraph screening. High-level officials in military, intelligence, and law enforcement do much worse, much more flagrantly wrong stuff over and over without anybody giving a shit.

If they prosecute anyone over what happened it most likely won’t be Hillary. It will be the people who sent her the emails that were improperly classified. Doing that opens the door for all kinds of horrible witch hunts against people in the military, CIA, DIA, DISA, NSA, FBI, White House, and Congress. That won’t happen unless Congress brings back special prosecutors to do it. And there’s no way Congress is going to create a special prosecutor charged with a job that has the potential to destroy the people running some of the most important government agencies on earth.

 

[335clone]

Hillary isn’t going to get indicted. The notion that she might be is just political theater and bad journalism. In the greater scheme of classified information handling screwups what she and the Department of State did rates a conversation with the site security officer and a few extra questions during the next regular polygraph screening. High-level officials in military, intelligence, and law enforcement do much worse, much more flagrantly wrong stuff over and over without anybody giving a shit.

If they prosecute anyone over what happened it most likely won’t be Hillary. It will be the people who sent her the emails that were improperly classified. Doing that opens the door for all kinds of horrible witch hunts against people in the military, CIA, DIA, DISA, NSA, FBI, White House, and Congress. That won’t happen unless Congress brings back special prosecutors to do it. And there’s no way Congress is going to create a special prosecutor charged with a job that has the potential to destroy the people running some of the most important government agencies on earth.

I tend to agree with you, though I do not put anything past this congress. Destroying people in the name of less government is right up their alley. Of course protecting classified information takes more manpower, not less but that is an insignificant detail. If they think they can take down Hillary, I predict no stone will be left unturned. Again, Kenneth Star. $40 mil for exactly what, again?

 

[335clone]

So, um, what you're saying here is that Reagan had everything to do with them being released.

I'm sorry man, but as I remember these events, the general feeling was that the hostage situation was going to resolved on day 1 of Reagan's term in office, one way or the other. Was it cowboy recklessness? Maybe.

October Surprise. The prelude to Iran Contra.

 

[jp_nyc]

I tend to agree with you, though I do not put anything past this congress.

Something I forgot to mention: this Congress can’t do it. The old special prosecutor law was allowed to expire in 1999 after Kenneth Starr scared the shit out of everybody in DC. They’d have to pass a new law to appoint a special prosecutor, and they’ll never get the votes to do that and override Obama’s veto. The attorney general could theoretically appoint a prosecutor, but Loretta Lynch isn’t going to put herself and her staff at risk of a special prosecutor running rampant and trying to take people down for mishandling classified information in email. And running such a prosecution would be career suicide, so even if the attorney general was going to do it the DOJ would have a hard time finding anyone to do it. It would have to be a retired prosecutor with no political ambitions and probably no friends or family who work with classified materials.

 

[wagdog]

The "individual right" theory is open to question.

...

Also, the right to free speech is an individual right. So is the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Couple of things, and a "thank you" - I've been reading up on both the Heller and Miller USSC cases due to this discussion.

My take from Heller is that the SC upheld the 2A as an individual right and addresses the militia question directly (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf):

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

Mind you, I haven't (yet) read all 157 pages.

Anyway, good discussion - I'll bow out now. Thank you for links and incentive to read more.

 

[OGG]

So, um, what you're saying here is that Reagan had everything to do with them being released.

I'm sorry man, but as I remember these events, the general feeling was that the hostage situation was going to resolved on day 1 of Reagan's term in office, one way or the other. Was it cowboy recklessness? Maybe.

No. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.

Reagan did not hold office during the hostage crisis. It was the knowledge of his impending taking of that office, and the very real threat of a massive military strike directed by him, that convinced the Ayatollah to put pressure on the capteurs and avoid the uncertain, but certainly unpleasant conflict.

That only speaks to the reckless and Gung Ho perception of Reagan as the President Elect, and says nothing of his ability to sensibly secure a release or of his ability to govern. It does not give him credit for their release anymore than a tornado can take credit for saving those in its path who see the storm coming and take shelter from it.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Anyway, good discussion - I'll bow out now. Thank you for links and incentive to read more.

Well, I wouldn't want you to bow out. I am learning as I go here as well. I am no 2nd Amendment expert. I was in law school a long time ago, and Heller has changed the landscape since then. I think you read correctly when you say that Heller was decided on an individual right basis, and a specific exception was made for the factual scenario in Miller. But to me, that a little bit begs the question. Bottom line, the 2nd A is not absolute, and how one gets there depends on the facts and situation before the court. A individual vs. collective rights analysis may not make that much of a difference depending on the case. As you can see, analysis changes over time. When a case has good facts, argue the facts. When a case has good law, argue the law. Lower courts should decide the case based on existing law. Higher appellate courts have more latitude. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority of the law of the land, right or wrong. And, cases are not always ideologically linear.

The Constitution is a living document as interpreted by the courts in my view. That is part of the problem I had with Scalia's originalist point of view, to the extent he ever really stuck to that view except when he wanted to. The modern United States is a very different place from when the Constitution was written. To try to figure out what the founders would have thought about whether or not to force a company to hack into a cell phone seems like nonsense to me. It is more important to discuss what the rights enumerated mean in a modern context. But again, that is my pretty moderate point of view talking.

 

[mongooz]

if the constitution is a "living breathing thing subject to the changing winds of popularity", then it will constantly be used by the ruling party to force the rest to conform to their will.
it is CONCRETE. THAT is what gives us liberty. that it can not be changed by the current interpretation of events. those that would give up a little liberty for the illusion of security, deserve neither.

 

[Kerouac]

if the constitution is a "living breathing thing subject to the changing winds of popularity", then it will constantly be used by the ruling party to force the rest to conform to their will.
it is CONCRETE. THAT is what gives us liberty. that it can not be changed by the current interpretation of events. those that would give up a little liberty for the illusion of security, deserve neither.

The very fact that we're able to amend the Constitution is what makes it worth pursuing change. The Founding Fathers were not infallible.

 

[mongooz]

The very fact that we're able to amend the Constitution is what makes it worth pursuing change. The Founding Fathers were not infallible.

yes.....it can be amended.....but not by a bunch of special interest groups and their agendas. takes a whole lot more than that....and for a reason. so it isn't changed by the mere political winds of the present.

 

[Flamencology]

Hell, Jefferson believed that it should be re-written about 5 times each century.

The US Constitution is antiquated. Many countries have better ones. Simply put.

 

[jp_nyc]

yes.....it can be amended.....but not by a bunch of special interest groups and their agendas. takes a whole lot more than that....and for a reason. so it isn't changed by the mere political winds of the present.

Unless it’s convenient to throw out over two centuries of interpreting “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” as it was written and jumping on an interpretation that was essentially nonexistent until the 1970s.

 

[mongooz]

Unless it’s convenient to throw out over two centuries of interpreting “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” as it was written and jumping on an interpretation that was essentially nonexistent until the 1970s.

well....apparently it is VERY convenient to throw out everything because it is antiquated and we should change it to be a model of .....oh wait.....there is no better model.
jefferson was a slave owner and was also a bastard father and was a fervent supporter of same. maybe we should amend the constitution to conform to those ways.....again.