Except the director of the FBI is a career law enforcement officer with a reputation for fairness and speaking truth to power, a lifelong Republican and was confirmed with overwhelming Republican support. Man they turn quick when they don’t get the outcome they want don’t they?
That is indeed his past. As for them turning - that is certainly true. Both parties have plenty of people that will say completely opposite things depending on the political circumstances. That’s why I looked it up myself. Since you talk about that so much, I thought you would understand both sides do it and may have thought further about it, but it seems this one fit your wishes.
SoPinesHeel - 12 July 2016 03:36 PM
Do you do any of your own research or just listen to what people who hate Hillary Clinton say since they are the only ones saying things contrary to the FBI. BTW Fox News and Brietbart are not objective sources, just in case you didn’t know.
What? I just told you I did my own research and cited a case from 1992. Did you read it or just realize that was the time to insert Fox News? My conclusions came from the text of the courts’ decisions. I guess CNN, MSNBC etc. know better than the judges that decided the cases?
SoPinesHeel - 12 July 2016 03:36 PM
So what kind of law do you practice? Do you hold a JD fromWikipedia or Facebook?
Hit Fox News and Brietbart in the last paragraph and now me in this one. I can see you’re following the playbook well but none of those little jabs actually addresses the case and are a waste of both of our time.
No, you said you listened to people who criticized the Director’s recommendation. Who, except people with political axes to grind, has done that? So you have been guided by people with agendas. I am trusting the professionals who made the recommendation. Isn’t the right supposed to be the ones who respect authority? Weird how little respect there is when they don’t get what they want.
Contrary to what you think, I am not a Democrat or Republican. There is plenty I don’t like about Hilary although it pales in comparison to my dislike of the con man that is the Donald. I am probably one of the only people you know who has voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections. I just don’t like hypocrites and Facebook experts. In this thread, the people who think they know more than the freakin Director of the FBI, based on a Wikipedia search, fit into that category.
No, you said you listened to people who criticized the Director’s recommendation. Who, except people with political axes to grind, has done that? So you have been guided by people with agendas.
Nope.
Curggr - 12 July 2016 03:21 PM
So that I wouldn’t be one of those basing opinions on party, I looked it up and found several cases where it was decided that intent wasn’t necessary, and the majority of them cited the case I mentioned somewhere in their decisions. To save time, I just posted that one and noted it had been referenced several times.
SoPinesHeel - 12 July 2016 04:05 PM
Contrary to what you think, I am not a Democrat or Republican. There is plenty I don’t like about Hilary although it pales in comparison to my dislike of the con man that is the Donald.
That’s fine. A lot of people feel that way.
SoPinesHeel - 12 July 2016 04:05 PM
. I just don’t like hypocrites and Facebook experts. In this thread, the people who think they know more than the freakin Director of the FBI, based on a Wikipedia search, fit into that category.
Okay, when I cite Wikipedia or Facebook, that will be a valid point. Until then, your little jabs fly in the face of what I’ve posted and are again a waste of time.
Nope what? Re read your post about people saying things contrary to the Director and then if you still insist on your legal expertise maybe you should consider a career in law enforcement. You seem to be the best at it. I am sure it is as easy as posting your expert opinions on a message board.
Btw, my “jabs” are simply pointing out the fallacy of your statements. Sorry you don’t like being questioned…But hey, you hold the internet law degree from Costco….who am I, along with the Director of the FBI and the Department of Justice, to disagree with such expertise.
Nope what? Re read your post about people saying things contrary to the Director and then if you still insist on your legal expertise maybe you should consider a career in law enforcement. You seem to be the best at it. I am sure it is as easy as posting your expert opinions on a message board.
Btw, my “jabs” are simply pointing out the fallacy of your statements. Sorry you don’t like being questioned…But hey, you hold the internet law degree from Costco….who am I, along with the Director of the FBI and the Department of Justice, to disagree with such expertise.
Yes, I said I heard other opinions and decided to research it myself while you blocked out anything you didn’t want to hear. Do you think people are infallible because they’re in the DOJ and that there can be no other opinions? That’s why the Supreme Court isn’t unanimous. People that question what they’re told, look for themselves. You didn’t.
You haven’t pointed to one fallacy in any of my statements. You’ve attacked me, Fox News, Brietbart, Facebook and Wikipedia, but you aren’t willing to touch the court decision(s) I noted. I’ve got no problem with being questioned, but if you’re simply going to stick with the attack the messenger fallacy and not going to respond to what’s actually posted, then it’s clear that a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Ok, since you can’t get it thru humor I will write in plain English.
You seem to think you know more that the Director of the FBI, a career prosecutor from the other party with a reputation of fairness and strong bipartisan support based on an Internet search of a case that you neither have the self admitted expertise or the experience to interpret like they do.
The fact that you think you do and refuse to admit maybe you don’t shows either extreme arrogance or a predictable yet disappointing capacity of self reflection.
I simply have enough judgement to respect the decisions of people who know more than I do, while maintaining the ability to see what is political theater and what is not.
Clear enough Counselor? Stop letting Facebook memes guide your beleif structure.
Ok, since you can’t get it thru humor I will write in plain English.
You seem to think you know more that the Director of the FBI, a career prosecutor from the other party with a reputation of fairness and strong bipartisan support based on an Internet search of a case that you neither have the self admitted expertise or the experience to interpret like they do.
The fact that you think you do and refuse to admit maybe you don’t shows either extreme arrogance or a predictable yet disappointing capacity of self reflection.
I simply have enough judgement to respect the decisions of people who know more than I do, while maintaining the ability to see what is political theater and what is not.
Clear enough Counselor? Stop letting Facebook memes guide your beleif structure.
I got the humor, it just wasn’t relevant.
I never said I know more than the Director of the FBI. I just understand that people aren’t perfect. Have you ever disagreed or thought there may have been a mistake made by someone who knows more than you, or do you always “respect the decisions?”
I also don’t just accept the words of the politicians and others on the other side. That’s why I went and looked for myself.
The law is full of cases where people disagree, that’s why there are literally two sides to every case. In this example, I didn’t draw a conclusion based on my own opinions/desires, I drew an opinion after reading several decisions made by judges who decided on such cases. If the Director is absolutely correct and intent is indeed required, why were people prosecuted in cases where the decision stated that intent wasn’t required? Wouldn’t their prosecution (while acknowledging lack of intent) on its face contradict that requirement? It’s been done!
I haven’t touched on any of the political theater - only the decision itself. Before I head to Facebook, I’ll call Little Bo Peep and tell her I found you. You probably lost her when she changed her pantsuit.
So I guess it is arrogance and an overstatement of your own legal knowledge then. Bummer, cause I was hoping for a lack of self reflection. Oh well
I guess that is what you get from Costco graduates…they have always been the most self righteous of the warehouse stores.
Your objection towards relevance is overruled due to your lack of understanding what the term relevance means. (Me criticizing your legal expertise is pretty much the most relevant thing possible when you are questioning a legal decision that everyone knew would be scrutinized by literally every legal and news outlet in the nation, based on a Wikipedia search and your interpretation of it with a message board level of in depth analysis while possessing a non existent level of legal training.)
I am curious as to why Pine is insulting Cugrr? He offers an opinion and you are backing your position with sourcing that anyone can look up. Pines just speaks of voting Libertarian and insulting Cugrr but doesn’t offer any rebuttals or facts to back it up…
Pines asks does Cugrr know he more than the Head of the FBI? Making political rather than legal choices do not require a degree in law or even a high diploma to see the obvious. It is easy to call a spade a spade. Some things are that obvious.
Why is the Supreme court so divided? If justice was blind then there would be more super majority decisions….of course this is political. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg is in hot water for making political comments about Donald Trump so cry me a river if you are that naive.
Last….Comey is not a Republican anymore. He admitted that in his appearance before the House subcommittee.
So I guess it is arrogance and an overstatement of your own legal knowledge then. Bummer, cause I was hoping for a lack of self reflection. Oh well
I guess that is what you get from Costco graduates…they have always been the most self righteous of the warehouse stores.
Your objection towards relevance is overruled due to your lack of understanding what the term relevance means. (Me criticizing your legal expertise is pretty much the most relevant thing possible when you are questioning a legal decision that everyone knew would be scrutinized by literally every legal and news outlet in the nation, based on a Wikipedia search and your interpretation of it with a message board level of in depth analysis while possessing a non existent level of legal training.)
Trump 2016!!!!
The irrelevant part was about the wiki and Facebook points while you refuse to acknowledge that I referenced legal decisions.
Perhaps you should consider changing your signature. I think “yes sir, yes sir, three bags full” would be a good one for you.
Because I am not the one claiming to know more than the cops on the beat…you all are. What is his gain smart guy? Once again you didn’t get what you wanted so you think it is a fix…I give him credit for doing something unpopular and probably cost him greatly.
Whitewater, Benghazi, emails…each time her enemies try to get her and they have to admit the evidence doesn’t support it…and they clear her in their own politically charged investigations….but yes she is a criminal mastermind trying to destroy America. If we just had someone who could save us…lets turn to a guy that has supported her his whole life til he duped everyone into thinking he could make America great again.
Yes why is it so political? says the dude whose team was given 8 years of a presidency by a Supreme Court.
We can thank Iraq, Afganistan, ISIS and the deepest economic crisis in a century on those strict constitutionalist judges from the right who decided an election. I am sure you were pissed about that one.
Yes, and Chemtrails are all part of the illuminati master plan too…I am sure you are also a big believer in all the evidence that points to 911 being orchestrated by the Bush administration too…No? Weird that the conspiracy theories you believe fit your world view as does the news choices you make.
Isn’t it nice to live in a self reinforcing bubble?
As I said earlier, I am sure you are also as equally upset by the 1000s of emails “lost” from the Bush administration in a clear violation of the law, and previous Sec of State’s private email severs that based on the careless handling of classified by the State department, most likely also had classified on them.
Weird that neither you nor Fox are too interested in those stories. If only you were we might have been spared trillions in wasted war spending and a collapse of the economy that required massive government intervention to prevent. Damn activist judges but they are conservative ones so they don’t count right? That would require you picking country over party though. Fox is too busy harassing its female hosts though while you are just a party guy. Oh well.
I have notice that you love to redirect EVERYTHING back to Bush and not address the present. You seem to think I think Bush was so friggin great. No I don’t. But I don’t dwell in the past either.
My point is you and your Fox buddies pull your punches. I am for what is right…not propaganda. If you don’t get all upset when your team does things then I am going to call you out.
