There's one important rule of Ted Cruz: no one likes Ted Cruz. Not his colleagues in the Senate, not his roommates, not his wife, not his daughter, not his mother. He lives amongst people who have been forced to tolerate him for one reason or another.
New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats
- Thread starter jeffblue101
- Start date
There's one important rule of Ted Cruz: no one likes Ted Cruz. Not his colleagues in the Senate, not his roommates, not his wife, not his daughter, not his mother. He lives amongst people who have been forced to tolerate him for one reason or another.
The real shock was that conservative Christians abandoned Cruz and the others for Trump - the antithesis of Christians values.
The real shock was that conservative Christians shifted their loyalties from Cruz and others over to Trump - apparently they have chosen to either ignore Matthew 18:16-24 or turned to some "self-serving interpretation" that allows them to climb into bed with a multi-billionaire!
jeffblue101
New member
Hillary and her staff can still and should face administrative sanctions in the form of revoking her current access to CIA briefings and her staff being blocked from working in the white house if she is elected.
jeffblue101
New member
in fact if she were treated like anyone else her access to CIA briefings would have been already blocked.
That's an interesting point. It seems like there might be latitude for the CIA to take an action like that. But then, certainly if she won the election, she couldn't stay cut off from the briefs. The whole reason we give presidential candidates classified briefs is continuity, so that someone new doesn't come in totally unprepared and unbriefed. So, it's not really for her sake that she's getting those briefs. That said, it would be fair to say that she can't exactly be trusted with some of those secrets.
I don't think political Christianity in the US is exactly about Christianity. And really, no one can stand Cruz...
Hard to argue there.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doesn't matter
Hillary's been branded "extremely careless"
that should be the final nail in the coffin
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
iow, rocketdude, just shut up and leave the legal analysis to the self-proclaimed "experts" :darwinsm:
Compared to you, who isn't?
I was wondering how long you could go without speaking to or about me...not very, as it turns out.
lain:
And speaking of experts, this came as no real shock to many in the profession. Say, Laurie Levenson, professor of law and Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School, where she also heads the Post-Conviction Litigation Clinic. Levenson has taught evidence, advanced trial advocacy, and other courses on criminal law.
In a National Law Journal article she wrote that criminal statutes relating to classified information normally require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of that information, adding, "It is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures."
In a National Law Journal article she wrote that criminal statutes relating to classified information normally require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of that information, adding, "It is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I was wondering how long you could go without speaking to or about me...not very, as it turns out.
i was speaking to rocketdude
about self-proclaimed "experts"
:darwinsm:
:mock:town, the pathetic loser
Well, I did say to OR about me.
It really comes across.iow, rocketdude, just shut up and leave the legal analysis to the self-proclaimed "experts"Originally Posted by Town Heretic
You are a layman with some experience and understanding of the literal reading of the law. You're also someone with no experience or real understanding of how and why that black letter law has been applied in cases like this or tends to be, of the ins and outs of prosecutorial discretion and reliance on precedent.
lain: What I actually said in that was he lacked an understanding of the law beyond a black letter reading.
Wouldn't know much about that, not having self-declared an expertise on the point, though I have noted any number of people who would qualify and I've cited them, most recently Laurie Levenson, Loyola law professor.
If you ever put away childish things would you have anything left? :think:
I disagree, no parallel needs to be drawn Rex. It is absolutely absurd that anyone can contend that removing classified information from its proper place, storing, transmitting, or destroying classified information is not a crime. People are fined, have their clearances revoked, and are imprisoned for much less without public fanfare so, I don't feel inclined, nor do I see necessity to hunt down a parallel. I am not saying the woman should be imprisoned Rex, though I believe it rises to that level but, to get a complete pass without having her clearances revoked, no fine, nothing...Heck even Sandy Berger had to pay a $50,000 fine, was given 2 years probation, and had his clearance revoked for taking documents from the national archives and destroying them. I am sorry, I disagree with you, no precedent or parallel needs to be drawn to convict a person of laws that they clearly broke knowingly, and you cannot make a case that a former first lady, U.S. Senator, or former Secretary of State did not know the rules for this...it is just not flying with me personally, or with the majority of Americans as well. The fact remains crimes were committed and she & the American people deserve to see her receive some level of punishment for them, and a pass is simply unacceptable.
Bullcrap! I understand perfectly that the law is interpreted & applied differently depending on who you are. If I had done the same as Hillary, I would have been convicted & sitting in a cell at leavenworth in short order but, for the lying felon Hillary....a pass. Yes, I understand how the double standard of the law works perfectly. :down:
If you had read my last link, you'd know that the state department has opening an investigation to determine if an administrative penalty such as loss of clearances or access should be imposed upon Clinton or her senior staff. That could have serious consequences to a Clinton White House, because while you can't really keep the President in the dark, it could jeapordize nominations she might want to make. Yes, Obama's State department, run by John Kerry, is investigating Clinton...but it's all politics, right? No one is just doing their job fairly?
Also, I'm not sure you can put a civilian in Leavenworth. So, if you were expecting that...