Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
From	Message
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 17:08	Two shots, and two misses. The context will become clear when i define the 5th or 6th point. We are still on point number 1. Anyone?
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 18:33	I've got all year. I won't demand immediate responses like some emotional non-vulcans. However, I will give the answer and continue on to the next point by Monday.
the-sigularity 26-Jan-18, 18:43	winslow The investigators responsibility is to gather evidence to prosecute unlawful acts, this is true in all cases in cities, counties, state, or national procedures. At the national level, the FBI investigates, and present the evidence to the Attorney General to prosecute, and it is the responsibility of the Attorney General office to decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. If after the evidence has been presented to the Attorney General, their function is as the principal adviser to the government to ensure that the rule of government is promoted, protected, upheld, and defend the public interest. This are responsibilities that is being impeded or obstructed by the president, who keeps meddling in the way the systems are operating at present, by constant bickering and defamation of their functions. The president does not want to provide support, or to allow this offices to follow the correct avenues by discrediting the way they are conducting their performance, and interfering with their ability to follow the due course of the law, because he wants to be able to say that the investigations are unreliable. Since he has the power to fire people, he is in a position to threaten those in office, to discourage them from incriminating him in any way. Whether the investigation is successful in showing the true facts will depend on the intestinal fortitude of Robert Meuller, and ultimately Jefff Sessions, who has exhibited reluctance to expose any wrong doing by the his boss, the president. The president is beleaguering Sessions again, to remind him that he should be mindful about what he may do against him. He is also trying to discredit the FBI witnesses without even knowing how they will testify, again, using those tactics to intimidate people.
ace-of-aces 26-Jan-18, 19:34	Mueller will declare soon. "It's all fake and trash " Case closed. Mueller's investigation will be completed after he interrogates Trump. He has enough evidence now that Trump is innocent. This is a mud slinging, character assassination campaign launched by Trump haters. Just like Comey did to HRC's emails by saying, " HRC is just careless. She did nothing wrong." History will repeat again like that. " It's all fake and Trash. It is not worthy anymore of looking into this garbage, wasting taxpayers money. No prosecutors would find anything good enough to prosecute poor Trump. Therefore, I want to close the case. He should be careful in his tweets and vocalization " I won't be surprised if he declares like that after interrogation of Trump.
the-sigularity 26-Jan-18, 19:49	If I were ever accused of a crime I would like to be able to fire all the investigators, prosecutors, and anyone else that would be able to find me guilty. I would do just what he is doing, threaten, criticize, discredit, and get rid of whatever would stand in my way that would jeopardize my freedom or integrity, If all the people had that same right, we would not have jails or fines.
lord_shiva 26-Jan-18, 19:56	Investigators Typically tell the prosecutor whether they think they have enough cause or evidence to pursue a case. Prosecutors are busy people, they tend to search out cases when they are either bored or feel their career could use a boost, propelling them to some other public office. Seldom do they go to the police and say, "dig up dirt on this political rival." Now the decision to bring charges is theirs. The police sometimes have to prioritize--plea bargain this dependent, please throw the book at that one. The only folks in law enforcement disappointed Hillary was not executed over email are so blinded by hate they have lost all contact with reason.
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 20:08	Winslow Many thanks for refocusing on the original subject!: The Clinton e-mail/James Comey matter. I would be pleased if all others kept to this issue as well in this thread despite softaire's whining. The reason is that it will be so much easier for EVERYBODY in the club to follow, and many of us are non-Americans, who fall easily out of the boat otherwise. With regard to any other possible conspiracies, please feel free to open SEPARATE threads. <So, the first point is this: Who is responsible for deciding whether or not a person should be prosecuted? Is it the FBI Director, or the Attorney General> I would immediately say the Attorney General. I still have not had the time to read the statutes on this that Winslow kindly posted, but I state it as the most probable option. I am not sure why Winslow even mentioned the FBI Director, unless he referred to Director Comey's report in Cingress where he said his opinion about whether Ms. Clinton should be prosecuted for a crime or not. Surely, he can say his opinion - I think that was actually what was expected of him.
lord_shiva 26-Jan-18, 20:29	Stalhandske is absolutely right. The attorney general files charges on the recommendation of law enforcement. Whenever the attorney general files charges AGAINST the recommendation of law enforcement, the reason is almost always political. DG is guilty of obstruction of justice, which he has already confessed multiple times. He is also guilty of conspiracy, and is guilty of being a nasty low life human scrotum bag.
lord_shiva 26-Jan-18, 20:37	Comey's Recommendation No one in Comey's office thought there was a crime worth prosecuting. Had Hillary been guilty of jaywalking, they would have gone after her with iron boots. As for this being an outgrowth of Benghazi, yes it was. 22 hearings on Benghazi, was it! There was no mishandling. Military officials have repeatedly said that knowing what they knew at the time, they would not have acted differently. There was nothing reasonable that could be done. This horse was beaten to death in the first hearing, and the grass beneath its corpse beaten into bare earth in the second hearing. The third hearing beat the Earth into a well deep enough to provide pretty decent flow per minute. The fourth through twenty second hearings made a lot of splashing in that water, and little else.
dmaestro 26-Jan-18, 20:44	The AG determines whether to prosecute the FBI Director recommended no prosecution in his report. In this case the tarmac meeting between a Bill Clinton and AG Lynch made Comey’s role more important based on appearances. However the context of the inadequacies of State Department email systems is relevant.
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 20:45	Thank you all for addressing the point. So we all agree. The prosecutor prosecutes and the investigator investigates. Is there any evidence that the investigator tried to usurp the position of the prosecutor in order to protect the defendant? I'll leave a video here of testimony from James Comey on the results of the email investigation: www.youtube.com
ace-of-aces 26-Jan-18, 20:49	Double standard ? Comey did not present the HRC's leaked email to DOJ Loretta Lynch at that time. If that is so, if Mueller found Trump with no wrong doings, what can't he do the same ?
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 20:50	Winslow <Is there any evidence that the investigator tried to usurp the position of the prosecutor in order to protect the defendant?> Sorry, but I cannot listen to the video still at this time (6:50 AM; it'll wake up my wife  ), so could you please give "the meat"? I can understand that your answer to the question will be "yes". But how on earth can you prove such a thing?
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 20:52	It's Comey's testimony before the world where he says Clinton broke the laws without intent and therefore should not be prosecuted.
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 20:53	<Comey did not present the HRC's leaked email to DOJ Loretta Lynch at that time.> I don't understand this. Comey presented the results of the FBI investigation, and his conclusion/recommendation to Congress. Isn't that sufficient, and the AG had complete freedom to act upon it if required. Am I wrong?
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 20:54	Also, good morning stalhandske! It's Saturday!!
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 20:59	Winslow <It's Comey's testimony before the world where he says Clinton broke the laws without intent and therefore should not be prosecuted.> Thanks! But if you look up the legal code applicable in this case, you will find that several cases listed require "intent" to make it a crime. Then there is a case also where intent is not required - I don't now remember the exact wording - but in Comey's opinion that clause was not broken in Ms Clinton's case. Here it is very important to realise that this legal clause (not requiring "intent", but making it a crime) is - in wording - just a thin hair different from the wording Comey used about Ms. Clinton's behaviour. Yet, taking everything into account, he voiced his (and FBI's) OPINION that this clause was not broken, i.e. that the barrier for crime was not passed.
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 21:02	Some of that is true and some of that is false. I'll address that tomorrow. For some reason I agreed to get up early tomorrow and go to work.
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 21:06	Winslow Got it. I have the whole rest of the year  . I would be especially interested, of course, in what part of my post was false, so if you can specify that tomorrow I'd be grateful.
winslowhightower 26-Jan-18, 21:08	I would be happy to! I do hope we can get through point one by the end of next week.
stalhandske 26-Jan-18, 21:10	No need to be cynical. I thought point one was solved. Do I need to look up that legal code for tomorrow? I am pretty sure that I quoted it accurately.
the-sigularity 26-Jan-18, 21:22	softy If a man is a known liar, who does so in public, is it unfair to call him a liar? If a man is known to be promiscuous as he was heard by many in news reports would you say it is wrong to repeat what he said, about him grabbing p****Y.? If a man says he likes war. Is it is not right to say that he does? If the truth is said about a man Should people not write about the truth? I think defending a man that demonstrates his inability to behave properly when he is supposed to be representing an entire country, is foolish.
lord_shiva 26-Jan-18, 21:25	<<Is there any evidence that the investigator tried to usurp the position of the prosecutor in order to protect the defendant?>> No. The entire notion is utterly ridiculous. Police do not prosecute cases. That is the job of lawyers. Again, lawyers act on evidence gathered by the police. If the police opinion is that a case is not worth prosecuting, very few lawyers will take it up. If they do, the reason is usually political rather than out of concern for the law or public safety. Is what Hillary did a threat o public safety, national security, or what? You need a building inspection when remodeling your home because if you sell the new owner should expect to not have the building fall down on him. What is the issue with the email? That State lacked a record? Only true when she corresponded with someone outside DoS. She may not have always ensured each message was duly copied.
stalhandske 27-Jan-18, 06:17	Winslow I now listened to Director Comey's report once again (the one you posted above). He is very clear about the two requirements of handling classified information that is criminal, viz. 1) intent, and 2) gross negligence. He is also very clear about why FBI rather came to the conclusion of "extreme carelessness". Furthermore, he makes crystal clear that his job is to refer the matter to the Dept. of Justice, and that it is the prosecutors that make decisions based on the information provided by FBI. Finally, he states that this investigation and the recommendation that it resulted in was entirely apolitical.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 07:21	Stal It is a common sense. Due process of law- legal system does not act that way. What Comey did was that as if he is both an investigator and a judge. Please follow up how the correct legal system works after Mueller's investigation. He has no business to decide whether a crime has been committed or not. Mueller has to present his findings to judiciary system where both sides can argue against the cases.
stalhandske 27-Jan-18, 07:46	Ace <Due process of law- legal system does not act that way. What Comey did was that as if he is both an investigator and a judge. Please follow up how the correct legal system works..> I think you are mistaken! Did you follow that declaration by Director Comey? He said precisely how the legal system works! <He has no business to decide whether a crime has been committed or not. > That is absolute nonsense! Of course, the police has the right to give their opinion on this. It was no DECISION!! If you understand what happened, Comey actually presented his (FBI's) findings and interpretation to the DOJ! That was his job!
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 08:39	Stal I am sure DOJ will know about Comey's investigations but that is irrelevant. My point is that whether they properly take actions and act fairly for both sides without bias. DOJ did not comment or say anything on Comey's statement. If I am not mistaken, did DOJ say like that ?, " We concur with Comey that HRC has done nothing wrong." Congress was upset after Comey's statement because he left the press conference without answering any of reporters questions. So, he was subpoenaed to congressional hearings and he was grilled. There were inconsistencies in the hearings but nobody suggested to indict her including even the GOP members because they don't believe Trump would win. Besides, they wanted to dump and got rid of Trump. They thought HRC was the only one who could do like that. If the Democrats establishment could do to honest and sincere person like Bernie Sanders, they might think that Trump was an easy target to demolish him. They were wrong. One more reason why GOP did not want to take any legal action is that American voters could become more sympathetic and voted for her if she is not allowed and if the legal proceedings disrupted with her elections.
ace-of-aces 27-Jan-18, 09:10	Stal Read carefully what easy-win said: The investigator's responsibility is to gather evidence to prosecute unlawful acts, this is true in all cases in cities, counties, state, or national procedures. At the national level, the FBI investigates, and present the evidence to the Attorney General to prosecute, and it is the responsibility of the Attorney General office to decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. If after the evidence has been presented to the Attorney General, their function is as the principal adviser to the government to ensure that the rule of government is promoted, protected, upheld, and defend the public interest. --------------------------- I believe anybody including me can agree with his statement. We have 2 similar situations here. 1. Comey's investigation of leaked HRC emails versus 2. Muellers investigation of Trump's involvement in Russian collusion. Trump has the power to fire Mueller and silent the investigation. This will be unfair and tantamount to obstruction of justice. In comey's case. He said that HRC is innocent and therefore no further investigation is necessary. Which route either you take, the end result is the same. It will end the investigation and criminals will be set free. We can also speculate or suspect that Comey might be colluding with DOJ/Democrat establishment or to protect his job by saying like that.
stalhandske 27-Jan-18, 09:19	Ace <In comey's case. He said that HRC is innocent and therefore no further investigation is necessary. Which route either you take, the end result is the same. It will end the investigation and criminals will be set free.> I am surprised that you continue with this nonsense. Comey never said Ms. Clinton was innocent. On the contrary, he used quite strong words about what she had done. He gave a very clear interpretation of the FBI investigation. He presented the case to Congress and the DOJ together with his assessment of how to continue. That is his right, and that was expected from him. You cannot blame Comey if the DOJ accepted his judgement and refrained from raising charges!
lord_shiva 27-Jan-18, 10:02	Chaz wrote: "it remains just as disturbing to consider the implications of 'defections' from the Trump camp, now perhaps including cabinet members... " Softaire replied: HUH? What are you talking about? I have heard nothing about "defections from the Trump Camp". Please explain. Will you take Business Insider? Quite a few business leaders DG appointed have resigned. Not Rex Tillerson, yet, but a good number. We think DG's turnover may be the highest in history, though Reagan had quite a few charged with various crimes. Obama seems to have done an excellent job vetting appointees, in contrast. Congress just held them up because--you know. Obama's epidermal melanin content was just too high. www.businessinsider.com
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.