row_33 Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No naivety at all. People guilty of actual crimes should be prosecuted. That's not what you're advocating though. it's all political Dems and liberals are completely scot-free from facing criminal charges, unless they are perceived as weak or not winning again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, joesixpack said: The WaPo is well known for being a mouthpiece of the CIA. Certain elements of that organization at the highest levels have been feeding that paper outright lies throughout the process, and they've passed those lies willingly on to the public. And you're ok with that. You're on the record as saying there should be no punishment for that. That's cool. That's your opinion. I happen to have a different opinion on the matter. If they've willingly, and knowingly, passed on false information in the public to assist in the covering up of a crime, they're complicit in the crime. No. That's not what I'm on the record as saying. That's a gross mischaracterization. What I'm saying is you prosecute criminal wrongdoing. What you're saying is that you invent crimes, and then retroactively prosecute the people you say have committed them. The former is consistent with the behavior of a government in a free society, the latter is consistent with the behavior of banana republics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No. That's not what I'm on the record as saying. That's a gross mischaracterization. What I'm saying is you prosecute criminal wrongdoing. What you're saying is that you invent crimes, and then retroactively prosecute the people you say have committed them. The former is consistent with the behavior of a government in a free society, the latter is consistent with the behavior of banana republics. So, the WaPo intentionally publishing stories that are at the very least slanderous or libelous toward the president, his family and associates isn't a problem? I thought that was still a crime in this country. Hm. Edited June 7, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: So, the WaPo intentionally publishing stories that are at the very least slanderous or libelous toward the president, his family and associates isn't a problem? Less of a problem than a federal edict surrounding what press outlets are allowed to say, and far less of a problem than a system which can invent crimes out of thin air to convict it's citizens of retro-actively. You prosecute based on the law you have. Full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 This "scandal" is going to hurt Obama's election prospects! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You prosecute based on the law you have. Full stop. You and I both know those criminal propagandists won't be prosecuted for anything. Which, again, is a shame. Hopefully someone will find a way to hold them to account for their blatant lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, joesixpack said: You and I both know those criminal propagandists won't be prosecuted for anything. Which, again, is a shame. Hopefully someone will find a way to hold them to account for their blatant lying. You prosecute based on the law you have. Freedom is a tricky thing, Joe. People are free to do ****ty things that you (and I) don't like which don't break the law. You don't to invent laws out of whole cloth which they broke, however. You are free to change the law going forward, and can prosecute when and if those laws are broken in the future. But you can't go back and invent crimes. There's sound reason for this. Can you conceive of a way in which a system which allowed citizens to be rounded up and purged by the Executive for "crimes" it invented ex-post-facto could be incredibly harmful to the citizens the live under it? The Founders conceived of this, which is why they explicitly made doing what you prescribe unConstitutional in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Edited June 7, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Freedom is a tricky thing, Joe. No ****. So, yet again the wicked prosper. Hooray America. Edited June 7, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, joesixpack said: No ****. So, yet again the wicked prosper. Hooray America. Do you think it's better to live under a system of government under which the government can invent crimes and prosecute it's citizens for ex-post-facto? Why do you think the Founders took the efforts to make doing so unConstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Do you think it's better to live under a system of government under which the government can invent crimes and prosecute it's citizens for ex-post-facto? Why do you think the Founders took the efforts to make doing so unConstitutional? Difficult question to answer. I'd rather live in a society where institutions like the washington post are, pardon the expression, taken to task for their malfeasance. Look, I'm a realist and I know nothing would happen to these people under the law. Unfortunate. But our society's kind of gimped that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 government workers are almost entirely exempt from prosecution for doing their jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Difficult question to answer. I'd rather live in a society where institutions like the washington post are, pardon the expression, taken to task for their malfeasance. Look, I'm a realist and I know nothing would happen to these people under the law. Unfortunate. But our society's kind of gimped that way. You think the reasoning behind why the Founders included explicit prohibitions on ex-post-facto laws in the Constitution is tough to figure out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You think the reasoning behind why the Founders included explicit prohibitions on ex-post-facto laws in the Constitution is tough to figure out? No, I understand it completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, joesixpack said: No, I understand it completely. OK, so we have a start. Now, can you think of any reasons why the Founders specifically enumerated this "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press" in the Bill of Rights? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html Edited June 7, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: OK, so we have a start. Now, can you think of any reasons why the Founders specifically enumerated this "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press" in the Bill of Rights? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html Yes, of course. They had a fear of the government controlling media. Whether it was founded or not is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Yes, of course. They had a fear of the government controlling media. Whether it was founded or not is another issue. I'd like to enter into evidence every totalitarian nation in modern history, and their state sponsored media. I's also like to enter into evidence the calamity going on in England, with their media blackouts, specifically engineered to crush opposition to the desires of the state. I'd also like to enter into evidence your own concerns about the WaPo. Imagine if, rather than simply being an operating arm of various agencies within government, they were instead sanctioned as the official mouthpiece of the government, and counter reporting were outlawed. These are real concerns, Joe. Not ghosts. These things actually happen, and they oppress the populations where they arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 He's right, you know: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He's right, you know: There is a bizarre parallel to a battered wife syndrome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He's right, you know: Oh, come on now... I have it on good authority that the Obama administration was the most transparent EVER!! What's the saying? If his lips were moving you know he was lying... Hope and change, the Chicago way. It is a wonder this country was still standing after 8 years of that bull ****. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 REMEMBERING THE OBAMA ERA: Victor Davis Hanson: The Silencing Of The Inspectors General. McCabe and at least a half-dozen other FBI employees quit, retired, were fired or were reassigned as a result of fallout from the politicization of the FBI. Yet, as Barack Obama left office, his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, strangely boasted that the Obama administration “has been historically free of scandal.” Obama himself recently concluded of his eight-year tenure, “I didn’t have scandals.” Those were puzzling assertions, given nearly nonstop scandals during Obama’s eight years in office involving the IRS; General Services Administration; Peace Corps; Secret Service; Veterans Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not to mention the Clinton email server scandal, the Benghazi scandal and the 2016 Democratic National Committee email scandal. For nearly eight years, the Obama administration sought to cover up serial wrongdoing by waging a veritable war against the watchdog inspectors general of various federal agencies. In 2014, 47 of the nation’s 73 inspectors general signed a letter alleging that Obama had stonewalled their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.” The frustrated nonpartisan auditors cited systematic Obama administration refusals to turn over incriminating documents that were central to their investigations. . . . In 2014, an internal audit revealed that CIA officials had hacked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computers while compiling a report on enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA Director John Brennan had claimed that his agents were not improperly monitoring Senate staff computer files. He was forced to retract his denials and apologize for his prevarication. In 2016, the State Department’s inspector general found that Hillary Clinton had never sought approval for her reckless and illegal use of an unsecured private email server. The IG also found that staffers who were worried about national security being compromised by the unsecured server were silenced by other Clinton aides. Still, Obama was right in a way: A scandal does not become a scandal if no one acts on findings of improper behavior. It was wall-to-wall corruption, but the press didn’t care because Obama was a sharp-creased Democrat. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts