AP vs X ... who wins? [ex: obstruction, justice]
> (apparently) senior officials >>> getting rid of [...] persons out >>> of 35,000 is highly unlikely to have any significant effect AP vs Top Men... who wins? AP vs X ... who wins?
Re: Trump accused of obstruction of justice
So the journalists who relayed leaks lack competence to evaluate the credibility of claims by (apparently) senior officials that there is an investigation into a President, which must presumably resemble a typical investigation, which must lead to a prosecution, which would involve arguing before a jury (which requires its own form of competence)... Isn't politics ultimately the evaluation of claims? Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, July 6, 2019 12:47 AM, jim bell wrote: > [Sent from Yahoo Mail on > Android](https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers_wl=ym_sub1=Internal_sub2=Global_YGrowth_sub3=EmailSignature) > >> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:28, Ryan Carboni >> <33...@protonmail.com> wrote:>According to this, the number of people the >> FBI employs is about 35,000 >> >>>35,000 is a lot of people. What makes you think 35,000 mindlessly obedient >>>persons make any relevant decision? >> >> I wasn't vouching for the competence or ethics of FBI personnel in general. >> I was pointing out that getting rid of only one FBI person out of 35,000 is >> highly unlikely to have any significant effect on the ability of the FBI to >> do anything it is supposed to do. >> >> The people who allege that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey seem to >> be unable or unwilling to explain how firing Comey actually achieved an >> obstruction of justice. >> >> Jim Bell
Re: Trump accused of obstruction of justice
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:28, Ryan Carboni<33...@protonmail.com> wrote:>According to this, the number of people the FBI employs is about 35,000 >35,000 is a lot of people. What makes you think 35,000 mindlessly obedient >persons make any relevant decision? I wasn't vouching for the competence or ethics of FBI personnel in general. I was pointing out that getting rid of only one FBI person out of 35,000 is highly unlikely to have any significant effect on the ability of the FBI to do anything it is supposed to do. The people who allege that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey seem to be unable or unwilling to explain how firing Comey actually achieved an obstruction of justice. Jim Bell
Re: Trump accused of obstruction of justice (was: Re: What does it mean to participate in society? )
On 7/5/19 3:18 AM, jim bell wrote: [...] > She was obviously guilty of violation of the Federal Records Act, which > required her to arrange to have the contents of her private server > backed up, essentially continuously, with the government, to the > National Archives. She did not do that. She also had her staff delete > 33,000 emails: Her justification is that those were "personal". That > was a lie, too. "Socialized" people interpret their experience of the material world in the context of an acquired "world view" which guides or, in most instances, controls their perception and interpretation of material conditions and events, and governs their responses to same. To "participate in society" necessarily includes compliance with dominant propaganda narratives, at least to the extent of knowing them and adjusting one's behavior to take their existence into account. Example: Our propagandists made an enormous Political Issue of Mrs. Clinton's private e-mail server: Both "because" it existed, and "because" of bulk deletion of content potentially including criminal evidence. But concurrently, our propagandists briefly and quietly reported the bare bones facts of Mrs. Clinton's separate felony offenses involving deliberate violations of the National Security Act, then fell silent on that subject. Mrs. Clinton reportedly removed classification markings from controlled documents and forwarded them to people not cleared to receive them. She also instructed her staff to do likewise, a separate and even more serious felony offense. Mrs. Clinton's status as an attorney, and the fact that she did sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, removes any doubt regarding her criminal intent and should qualify her for enhanced sentencing: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf "I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures." The simple, unambiguous nature of these e-mail related crimes accounts for the (relative) silence of our propagandists on that topic: No defense or evasion based on accusations of partisan bias can 'make them didn't happen'. Mrs. Clinton can not pretend she "did not know" her actions were felonies. The refusal of Federal law enforcement to bring charges demonstrates that Mrs. Clinton enjoys de facto immunity from the legal system that governs lesser mortals. As this bluntly contradicts the foundational myth of "equal justice under law", under the rug it goes. How lucky for Mrs. Clinton that the FBI simply "forgot" to impound her computers and image their hard drives in the course of a criminal investigation based on the content of those hard drives. Even if she had been charged, procedural stalling based on this circumstance would assure that she died of old age before the disposition of her charges. In context with the above, the Trump Regime's failure to bring obstruction of justice charges against the Obama Regime's fixers in the FBI indicates Trump's commitment to support "class privilege" and, most likely, fear of retaliatory violations of his own class privilege should he get "out of line" with anything but his mouth. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Trump accused of obstruction of justice (was: Re: What does it mean to participate in society? )
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 02:17:26 AM PDT, Ryan Carboni <33...@protonmail.com> wrote: >What does it mean to participate in society? What does it mean to passively >participate? What happens when you deny a person to even passively >participate? If a person for example, anonymously goes to a hackerspace just >to observe but everyone there is informed ahead of time, what does that say? >The great ludicrousness of it all is that the President is accused of >obstruction of justice and treason all the time. Very good laws. I have a large amount of experience learning Federal laws, as many of you know. Not merely criminal and appeals law, but also Contract law, Tort law (including libel law), Patent law, copyright law, Anti-Trust law, and other areas. I learned those because, unfortunately, I had the time to do so. So, I think I can write with a substantial amount of justification. I have not heard a single credible allegation that Trump has "obstructed justice" or "colluded with the Russians". What most people, including nearly all non-lawyers, don't realize is that the actual meaning of "obstruction of justice" (OOJ) cannot be determined merely by reading the words in the statutes. To understand this, it's necessary to look at years of case-law, decisions by courts on what does, and does not, constitute OOJ. If someone is out driving, and rear-ends a prosecutor driving to work on an important case, that driver certainly impedes that prosecutor, but nobody calls it OOJ unless the driver knows he's a prosecutor and does so with the intention of impeding that prosecutor's work. THAT would be OOJ. Trump fired Comey. If I had had the power to do so, I would have fired Comey on July 5, 2016, the date he gave that execrable speech claiming that "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge Hillary Clinton. I certainly wouldn't have allowed Comey to stay on the job after January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated. Comey lied, claiming that "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge her. Actually, it would be much closer to the truth to say to reasonable prosecutor would NOT charge her. Except those who refused to do so on purely political considerations: They want to see HRC become President. Comey, and his allies, fully knew that if the government had indicted her, she would almost certainly have lost the election. The only way, therefore, she could win the election is if they didn't indict her. They obviously chose the only way consistent with letting her win. That sure sounds like obstruction, to me. This assumes, of course, that there was in existence an arguably valid reason to indict: And there was such a reason, actually multiple reasons! She was obviously guilty of violation of the Federal Records Act, which required her to arrange to have the contents of her private server backed up, essentially continuously, with the government, to the National Archives. She did not do that. She also had her staff delete 33,000 emails: Her justification is that those were "personal". That was a lie, too. My understanding is that her famous emails were scanned for strings in their subjects, not the full text of the emails themselves. If the emails had at least one of a list of search-words, they would keep them, and the rest would be deleted. For example, what if some of the search terms for the scanning were "FBI", "CIA", "government", and "investigation". Suppose she had written an email which was titled, "Let's obstruct the FBBI's and CIIA's guvurnment investigayshun". Obviously, that wouldn't be caught in the scan, and therefore these emails would be deleted. They would be assumed to not be government emails. Sound implausible? Well, suppose HRC had decided on this path as early as her appointment into office, say early 2009. Every email she wrote, she could have been aware that eventually, it would be scanned for its Subject, and deleted if one of a list of text-strings wasn't present. So, she could assure herself that any given email she wrote would be "lost", years from then, and with 'plausible deniability', at least a fig-leaf. Another reason to charge her? Violation of the Espionage Act. She kept classified information (emails) in an insecure, unapproved server, apparently in a converted bathroom. She didn't have to have any "intent" here, and the people who talk about "intent" don't even know about what she was supposed to have "intent". She may have had no "intent" that this information find its way into the hands of some official enemy, let's say "the Russians!". Rather, she clearly intended that this information (including classified information) stay in an insecure location, one not approved for the secure storage of classified information. How do we know? Apparently, HRC was given an official government email address, on an official government server, which she never used. That is key:
