So the Democrats are going to get things straight, huh? - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 04:17 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Um the Republicians have owned the White House for 26 of the past 40 years. Which means they have controlled the DoJ "at the pleasure..."

This might really start to explain some things as I think about it.
You must also know that the White House is only 1/4 the equation. You still have both senate and house along with the Supreme Court before anything can become permanent law. The Democrats have dominated either one or both houses more than Republicans in the llast 40 years.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 05:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Ya might want to check out the Presidental Records Act, Hatch Act, and FEC rules regarding records on those grounds to prosecute.

Now, regarding junkets. Everyone does it. Is it right? Depends on the junket. If it is to inspect sand in Fiji, most likely not. If it is to see refugees in Darfur, yes. This is one of those fun parlor games where folks like to wrap everyone in one blanket when that is not the case. I have been on two of these wasted trips and the seven congressmen on one and three on the other worked their ass off during the trips trying to find information that was not forthcoming or readily available in nice briefings on the Hill.

There is a big difference between the taxpayer funded trips that occur [reams of rules] vs the lobby funded trips that seem to fall between the rules.
Here's your argument set to music: My junket is red-hot, your junket ain't diddley-squat.
Botnst is offline  
post #53 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 06:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Here's your argument set to music: My junket is red-hot, your junket ain't diddley-squat.
Yep, the corrupt republicans rubbing elbows with the K street lobbyists vs. the democrats trying to re-establish some leadership. You're right, same thing.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #54 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 06:48 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
The content of the emails is relevant so as to prove whether this was a 'mistake' or a blatant attempt to cover something up. Just because you or I may think something is very suspicious about this does not make it prosecutable. It will be about the cover up, if there is one. And I think if there is one, it will be found out and soon.

I will be surprised if any federal prosecutor will take on the WH for the missing emails unless it is proven what was in them. Then, you'll see something happen.
There may or may not be one or more cover-ups involved. But I'm just talking about the POTUS and his staff fulfilling their basic responsibilities here. If they are unwilling or unable to exercise reasonable care to ensure that this information is archived properly, it is criminal negligence, regardless of content. Think of the poor slob who didn't salt the ice on his sidewalk -- it's the same thing -- malice is not a requirement. I honestly don't know exactly what's going on here beyond that, but 1000 flies can't be wrong...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #55 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 06:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old300D
Yep, the corrupt republicans rubbing elbows with the K street lobbyists vs. the democrats trying to re-establish some leadership. You're right, same thing.
You're right.

Will you stand with me and nominate Rep William jefferson as the quintessential Democrat Party member?

B
Botnst is offline  
post #56 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 06:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
There may or may not be one or more cover-ups involved. But I'm just talking about the POTUS and his staff fulfilling their basic responsibilities here. If they are unwilling or unable to exercise reasonable care to ensure that this information is archived properly, it is criminal negligence, regardless of content. Think of the poor slob who didn't salt the ice on his sidewalk -- it's the same thing -- malice is not a requirement. I honestly don't know exactly what's going on here beyond that, but 1000 flies can't be wrong...
I'm not a lawyer but I went camping with one recently.

I think for criminality you have to have some evidence of intent to subvert the law, don't you? I'm not arguing that incompetence is a whole lot better, mind you. But I think criminality has special circumstances greater than mere bungling.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #57 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
OK -- negligence vs. criminal negligence. I'm not sure, I know that a failure to exercise reasonable care is ample cause for compensatory damages, but I'm not sure about criminal liability... You may be right.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #58 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 07:13 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
You're right.

Will you stand with me and nominate Rep William jefferson as the quintessential Democrat Party member?

B
Sure--sounds about right. I nominate Tom Delay for the GOP.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #59 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 07:14 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I'm not a lawyer but I went camping with one recently.

I think for criminality you have to have some evidence of intent to subvert the law, don't you? I'm not arguing that incompetence is a whole lot better, mind you. But I think criminality has special circumstances greater than mere bungling.

B
Never works for me, Bot. "Officer, I missed the speed limit sign, and thought this was a 55mph zone, not a 35mph zone." Cha-Ching! Pay the fine and take the points.

As it has been explained to me, ignorance is not a meaningful defense. And, in this case there is plenty of evidence that ignorance of the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act is not even being claimed - they are the reason for the double email system.

So, deleting the email is at the least criminal negligence because the result is contrary to the conditions the law prescribes as the minimum legally acceptable result. "Mere bungling" is no different than being negligent. The words sound like a better defense, but they are not distinguishable from negligence. The fact that the negligence results in a law being broken makes it "criminal negligence." Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #60 of 78 (permalink) Old 04-16-2007, 08:27 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Never works for me, Bot. "Officer, I missed the speed limit sign, and thought this was a 55mph zone, not a 35mph zone." Cha-Ching! Pay the fine and take the points.

As it has been explained to me, ignorance is not a meaningful defense. And, in this case there is plenty of evidence that ignorance of the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act is not even being claimed - they are the reason for the double email system.

So, deleting the email is at the least criminal negligence because the result is contrary to the conditions the law prescribes as the minimum legally acceptable result. "Mere bungling" is no different than being negligent. The words sound like a better defense, but they are not distinguishable from negligence. The fact that the negligence results in a law being broken makes it "criminal negligence." Jim
Whether you're right, I'm right, GermanStar is right or Botnst, the fact is, whatever we think is moot. We just have to see what shakes out.
I still maintain that the missing emails are not prosecutable/will not be prosecuted unless evidence turns up a cover up of criminal activity. Criminal activity could be anything from lying under oath to a Grand Jury (we all know what they'll do to you for that) to outright law breakage of monumental proportions. While the firings of the prosecutors, in it's own right, may be legal, if anyone lied about it under oath, regardless of the legality of the firings, prosecution of the perjury could take place.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Best things / Worst things about where you live FeelTheLove Off-Topic 50 07-12-2007 10:24 PM
    Huh? Zedd Off-Topic 4 03-27-2007 03:44 PM
    what a waste huh?? trickm911 W163 M-Class 4 03-03-2006 05:35 PM
    How Democrats See Things: A Double Standard? 98MBE320 Off-Topic 7 10-08-2004 09:37 PM
    Looks weird huh? Chris Krikorian W163 M-Class 11 11-15-2001 09:51 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome