Bimmerpost
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion The Democratic Presidential Candidate Debates May Well Be an Interview

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-10-2015, 01:10 PM   #45
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
From Pam Bondi's website
"Florida began its tradition of openness back in 1909 with the passage of Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes or the “Public Records Law.” This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Florida Legislature."

I suppose the argument here is what constitutes availability.

But then he released them, thereby releasing a vast number of SSNs and private information which, it could be argued, violated a Right of Publicity law
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/flor...-publicity-law

There is actually case law here already to set a precedent.

I have more than once said they were both wrong. Let's not even look at the severity of each incident. Hillary was wrong. Jeb was wrong. I may have missed it, but I do not believe you have said whether you think JB is wrong too, just that his case is not as severe as HC's.

Do you think Jeb was wrong in his actions? Let's put the law aside for a minute - do you think it's acceptable for a public official to keep records on a private server or a private account that may potentially affect their office tenure? Let's put all the justification aside for a minute and just go with yes or no.
That issue of releasing private information is perhaps the only case that certain pundits have against Bush, if they have one at all.

Bush's email "dump" as some call it, was being discussed well before Hilary's email scandal. I don't recall anyone questioning the legality of it in those earlier mentions:

NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/us...oals.html?_r=0

CBS - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush...il-server-too/

Neither source are known to be favorable to Republicans, and yet both articles state very clearly that Bush's email release was in accordance with Florida's open record laws.

It's interesting how the legality of Jeb Bush's email policy was only brought up after Hilary's emails became a big deal.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:15 PM   #46
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
Do you think Jeb was wrong in his actions? Let's put the law aside for a minute - do you think it's acceptable for a public official to keep records on a private server or a private account that may potentially affect their office tenure? Let's put all the justification aside for a minute and just go with yes or no.
I will gladly answer that question, but first you must answer the one I asked you in a previous post:

'If president Obama was found to be using a private email server, archived and maintained separately from the National Archives' oversight, would you be okay with that, irregardless of the legal implications?'
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:23 PM   #47
954Stealth
Brigadier General
954Stealth's Avatar
United_States
1139
Rep
4,516
Posts

Drives: A Car
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bacon Raton, FL

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
I will gladly answer that question, but first you must answer the one I asked you in a previous post:

'If president Obama was found to be using a private email server, archived and maintained separately from the National Archives' oversight, would you be okay with that, irregardless of the legal implications?'
No I would not and in fact I was not a fan of him and his Blackberry until I read more about it and its security and information dissemination.

He sent Hillary emails to her private server but he didnt know it was private. The fault still lies with her.

"President Obama exchanged emails with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at her private address -- @clintonemail.com -- but did not know the details of her account or how she would comply with administration policy and federal records law, the White House said today. -- March 9 2015
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...ry?id=29505653

“Yes, he was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “But he was not aware of her personal email server or that she was using it exclusively for all her business.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billup View Post
You know you're getting bacon, when you're cooking bacon.
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:47 PM   #48
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
No I would not and in fact I was not a fan of him and his Blackberry until I read more about it and its security and information dissemination.
So why is Hilary doing that exact same thing any different? She was privy to sensitive information on a daily basis, and made communications relevant to national security and posture. Why was to okay for her to keep those records out of public archives from day one, and why does she get such a virulent defense from some and nonchalant acknowledgement from others?

My point in asking that question, is if it had been President Obama in Hilary's shoes, no one would try to defend him...he's the President and it's expected that everything he says and does in an official capacity is being recorded. But because Hilary is trying to make a presidential run, some people are willing to justify her actions, or atleast marginalize them by casting blame on others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
He sent Hillary emails to her private server but he didnt know it was private. The fault still lies with her.

"President Obama exchanged emails with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at her private address -- @clintonemail.com -- but did not know the details of her account or how she would comply with administration policy and federal records law, the White House said today. -- March 9 2015
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...ry?id=29505653

“Yes, he was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “But he was not aware of her personal email server or that she was using it exclusively for all her business.”
Well at least that's what the Obama administration is claiming (that they were in the dark on Hilary's email setup). I agree that there is no information yet to suggest otherwise, but this is also the same administration that claimed:

-people could keep pre-existing health care policies under the Affordable Care Act

and

- that Assad would be removed from power if his Syrian government was found to be using chemical weapons against his own people.

A lot of things have been "claimed" by this administration that have turned out to be false or have little meaning.

In answer to your earlier question though, I do not like the idea of government officials, state or federal, withholding official communiques (including emails) from public records. In order to keep the government, and its elected official accountable, there needs to be oversight and transparency.

So yes, I would have preferred to see Jeb use a government email or archive his emails from the start of his governorship.

That being said, I don't see enough evidence to put Jeb and Hilary in equal culpability for the following reasons:
-Hilary violated a regulation (Federal Records Act) which required her to maintain her emails with a government archive; Jeb was not bound by such regulation while he was governor and has complied with those public record laws that did apply to him.

-Hilary was the head of the US' foreign policy and privy to much more sensitive information, Jeb was not.

-Hilary carries a lot more political baggage with her. She has a history of being associated with scandals (sometimes perceived sometimes real) and she has a big incentive to withhold information from public records (Bhengazi among other foreign policy issues during her time). I still have yet to hear what scandals and skeletons Jeb Bush was trying to cover up by keeping his emails private.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:48 PM   #49
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

For the sake of clarity related to the "severity" of the breech HC MAY have been a party too, CLASSIFIED email is not transmitted on the same circuits, and none of that email was forwarded to her personal server.

The problem with JB and his email dump is that somebody got lazy and did not go in and do their required job of redacting the SSN data. I don't know the quantity of emails, but that is a dauntingly boring job, I do it a few times a year myself.
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:51 PM   #50
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Oh, and BO is hip enough to the groove with his social media to know that @clintonemail.com is NOT a government sanctioned email server/address.
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 01:57 PM   #51
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
For the sake of clarity related to the "severity" of the breech HC MAY have been a party too, CLASSIFIED email is not transmitted on the same circuits, and none of that email was forwarded to her personal server.
I think you are giving certain civilians in the State Department far too much credit.

Information security and email usage has had plenty of lapses, even on the military/intel side of things. But I agree with your point below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Oh, and BO is hip enough to the groove with his social media to know that @clintonemail.com is NOT a government sanctioned email server/address.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-10-2015, 02:02 PM   #52
954Stealth
Brigadier General
954Stealth's Avatar
United_States
1139
Rep
4,516
Posts

Drives: A Car
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bacon Raton, FL

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
So why is Hilary doing that exact same thing any different? She was privy to sensitive information on a daily basis, and made communications relevant to national security and posture. Why was to okay for her to keep those records out of public archives from day one, and why does she get such a virulent defense from some and nonchalant acknowledgement from others?

My point in asking that question, is if it had been President Obama in Hilary's shoes, no one would try to defend him...he's the President and it's expected that everything he says and does in an official capacity is being recorded. But because Hilary is trying to make a presidential run, some people are willing to justify her actions, or atleast marginalize them by casting blame on others.



Well at least that's what the Obama administration is claiming (that they were in the dark on Hilary's email setup). I agree that there is no information yet to suggest otherwise, but this is also the same administration that claimed:

-people could keep pre-existing health care policies under the Affordable Care Act

and

- that Assad would be removed from power if his Syrian government was found to be using chemical weapons against his own people.

A lot of things have been "claimed" by this administration that have turned out to be false or have little meaning.

In answer to your earlier question though, I do not like the idea of government officials, state or federal, withholding official communiques (including emails) from public records. In order to keep the government, and its elected official accountable, there needs to be oversight and transparency.

So yes, I would have preferred to see Jeb use a government email or archive his emails from the start of his governorship.

That being said, I don't see enough evidence to put Jeb and Hilary in equal culpability for the following reasons:
-Hilary violated a regulation (Federal Records Act) which required her to maintain her emails with a government archive; Jeb was not bound by such regulation while he was governor and has complied with those public record laws that did apply to him.

-Hilary was the head of the US' foreign policy and privy to much more sensitive information, Jeb was not.

-Hilary carries a lot more political baggage with her. She has a history of being associated with scandals (sometimes perceived sometimes real) and she has a big incentive to withhold information from public records (Bhengazi among other foreign policy issues during her time). I still have yet to hear what scandals and skeletons Jeb Bush was trying to cover up by keeping his emails private.
I think we are kind of making similar points and starting to go in circles now

That said, you keep mentioning " I don't see enough evidence to put Jeb and Hilary in equal culpability" and similar comments. I have not said they are equally culpable, in fact, I have stated that the severity of each incident is not equal. But that doesn't make either party innocent. Further, your examples of ACA and Assad neither prove nor disprove the facts we are discussing. I'm seeing this either in black and white, perhaps you have some shades of gray in there? It is either right or it is wrong. I say they are both wrong.

We are in agreement that both have done non-preferential things, and we also both agree that the emails should be public.

These incidents, I fear, will continue to be blown out of proportion and may potentially derail one or the other (or both)'s candidacy. I think both have done good things and I hope this does not get in the way or the rest of their platforms.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billup View Post
You know you're getting bacon, when you're cooking bacon.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2015, 08:46 AM   #53
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
That said, you keep mentioning " I don't see enough evidence to put Jeb and Hilary in equal culpability" and similar comments. I have not said they are equally culpable, in fact, I have stated that the severity of each incident is not equal.
I wasn't getting that impression from your previous posts, but if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
But that doesn't make either party innocent.
I agree with you there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
Further, your examples of ACA and Assad neither prove nor disprove the facts we are discussing.
The examples of Obama's comments on the ACA and Assad have nothing to do with the Hilary and Jeb email issue. I brought them up to show that the Obama administration hasn't always kept its word or been truthful in the past.

In fact another post on this thread explains that Obama very likely knew Hilary was using a private email server for the following reason:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Oh, and BO is hip enough to the groove with his social media to know that @clintonemail.com is NOT a government sanctioned email server/address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
I'm seeing this either in black and white , perhaps you have some shades of gray in there? It is either right or it is wrong. I say they are both wrong.
This is where I lose you. How do you see this in black and white (no shades of gray) but at the same time acknowledge that Jeb doesn't share equal culpability with Hiliary on this email issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 954Stealth View Post
We are in agreement that both have done non-preferential things, and we also both agree that the emails should be public.

These incidents, I fear, will continue to be blown out of proportion and may potentially derail one or the other (or both)'s candidacy. I think both have done good things and I hope this does not get in the way or the rest of their platforms.
I agree that Jeb and Hilary should have done a better job of using government-managed email accounts. But I think that is all you and I agree on in this issue.

I don't see anything getting blown out of proportion here. As Sec. of State, Hilary Clinton used a private email, against regulations, that allowed her to save and archive emails outside of the government's oversight. Jeb Bush did something similar, but was not in violation of any rules by doing so, and I'm sure plenty of other governors and state-level officials legally do the same thing.

I don't like the idea of government officials using private email servers, but whereas this is an "issue" for Jeb, this is a huge breach of trust for Hilary Clinton. The Federal government has had plenty of scandals, misuse/abuses of power in the last few decades....the last thing we need is for Federal officials to think it is okay to keep their emails out of public hands.

Like I said before, this is not a double-standard; I have much higher expectations of conduct from the Federal government than I do for state and local officials.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2015, 09:44 AM   #54
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
Like I said before, this is not a double-standard; I have much higher expectations of conduct from the Federal government than I do for state and local officials.
Care to expand on that? Unless we are talking Mayberry and they don't have anything but Gmail, EVERY government official, being party to the requirements of public disclosure, should be using government email system where the public can make REASONABLE requests for information, and an independent (not the subject of the request) person can retrieve the email that meets the litmus test of being a public record.

There are lots of on-going discussions about email being transitory communication that only becomes a public record after some other esoteric criteria is met, but I'm of the opinion that if you keep it more than about 90 days with the expressed intent "so I can refer back to it to make a decision or support what I did" then it is a public record. Things like "We need to meet to talk about X" probably isn't, unless somebody is claiming they never knew about something. Certainly the sheer volume of generic spam that comes into an email box has no bearing on a public records request, other than MAYBE the quantity of spam a person has to wade thru each day.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2015, 11:38 AM   #55
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Care to expand on that? Unless we are talking Mayberry and they don't have anything but Gmail, EVERY government official, being party to the requirements of public disclosure, should be using government email system where the public can make REASONABLE requests for information, and an independent (not the subject of the request) person can retrieve the email that meets the litmus test of being a public record.
I did expand on that in my previous post. And I agree with you that government officials should be using government email accounts. I just see a world of difference in terms of significance between a governor using a private email and the Sec. of State using private email.

We've had Sec. of State, VP's, all kinds of Federal appointees and even presidents lie and mislead our nation, under oath, and somehow certain people think there is nothing wrong with a Sec. of State using a private email server? Really?!? An entire administration was dismantled because of its refusal to hand over tape recorders (Nixon, for all the history buffs out there), but withholding emails from public oversight somehow isn't a big deal?

At the end of the day, Jeb Bush never misled anyone or tried to cover up that he was using a private email server. And if voters didn't like what he was doing in that regard, they had a means of recourse (recall, elect a rival politician). What recourse do voters have against a Sec. of State who wants to keep her communications private?
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe

Last edited by Dalko43; 03-11-2015 at 11:52 AM..
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2015, 11:43 AM   #56
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Ok, you have a much higher IDEAL expectation, but it seems a much lower opinion.

I'm in the same boat. . .
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2015, 02:43 PM   #57
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Ok, you have a much higher IDEAL expectation, but it seems a much lower opinion.

I'm in the same boat. . .
Yes, I have a certain 'skepticism' of big government.

For all its faults, I love this country and the democratic experiment it has created. But we're all humans, even those polished suits & ties in DC, and so there needs to be accountability.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 09:16 AM   #58
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Oh, and BO is hip enough to the groove with his social media to know that @clintonemail.com is NOT a government sanctioned email server/address.
I can't help but agree with this; however, more than a few folks with whom I exchange emails are in my address book, so if I see their email address itself, it's quite likely only on the first or second communication with them. I suspect that's no different with others.

The question in my mind, however, is why, upon seeing the non-governmental folks, particularly other governmental employees communicating about official government matters, responded to the first or second email that came to them from what they surely had to at least suspect wasn't a governmental email address/server? It's not as though they don't all know damn well that they and the sender are expected to provide a level of transparency in their communications and they all know that means sending and receiving emails from a government server, one that provides a "dot gov" domain.

Having said that, I still consider whether I actually give a damn about what server any of them used, and quite frankly, I don't. I see the whole matter as something folks are using to pick at a potential Presidential candidate. Were it all that much of an issue, surely someone would have brought this up back when Mrs. Clinton was in office as Secretary of State. But did we hear a peep about it? Not one.
  • So just how disturbing could those emails have been? How disturbed were the receipients of them that they didn't come from a ".gov" server?
  • Did they or anyone else indicate concern over the matter before it became considerably more certain that Mrs. Clinton would indeed run for President?
  • Is this anything more than an opportunistically timed, preemptive red herring tossed out to defame a candidate?
At the end of the day, it's not about whether a candidate has "skeletons in their closet," but rather when they'll be made known to the public. That's just the way it is for powerful people. It's laughable to think that anyone in power, or who's very wealthy even, has never done something, made a decision, etc. that cannot be cast in a negative way. That's just the nature of "tough decisions." Anyone who doesn't understand that just hasn't ever have to make any.

One other thing that I think a lot of folks don't get is that rules, all rules, exist for the advisement of leaders, not to constrain their actions. That concept is even found in The Constitution wherein it states that the Senate provides advice and consent on various matters; it doesn't say the Senate can prohibit a course of executive action. At executive levels, one needs to do what's best, what's most effective, most efficient, and so on. Again, if one hasn't been in an executive role, one probably won't understand that, but it's a practical exigency that every exec is well aware of. Every executive exercises prerogative on a daily basis.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 03-12-2015 at 09:21 AM..
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 09:28 AM   #59
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

PERSONALLY, if a message that states its from (insert government executive's name) doesn't come from .gov, I am extremely suspect of its true origins, and might be inclined not to even open it.

Even on the battlefield, we have ROEs. Don't follow them, be prepared to face court-marshal. Also, if you don't follow this trivial email rule, it plants the seed of concern about what other rules you don't follow.

Just for the record, I think Mrs. Clinton was my early front-runner to receive my vote in 2016.
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 09:30 AM   #60
954Stealth
Brigadier General
954Stealth's Avatar
United_States
1139
Rep
4,516
Posts

Drives: A Car
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bacon Raton, FL

iTrader: (1)

Hillary said (paraphrasing) "If I could do it again, I would have done it differently." I respect her for that. I choose to believe this was pure oversight, not anything done in an intentionally devious manner. I also look at candidates/public officials who have not only done nothing publicly wrong but how those who have had issues arise handle themselves. I agree with tony20009 in that this has been rather convenient, opportunistic timing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billup View Post
You know you're getting bacon, when you're cooking bacon.
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 09:44 AM   #61
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

What was it that prompted the release of the emails in the first place???
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 10:17 AM   #62
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
PERSONALLY, if a message that states its from (insert government executive's name) doesn't come from .gov, I am extremely suspect of its true origins, and might be inclined not to even open it.

Even on the battlefield, we have ROEs. Don't follow them, be prepared to face court-marshal. Also, if you don't follow this trivial email rule, it plants the seed of concern about what other rules you don't follow.

Just for the record, I think Mrs. Clinton was my early front-runner to receive my vote in 2016.
I get what you are saying, but that still remains the purview and prerogative of leadership. Lesser mortals, followers, may make the sort of inference you suggest, but then they aren't leaders. If/when the time comes that they are, they will surely say "rules be damned" at some point or other.

Surely every child is taught this really not at all difficult concept, although perhaps not enough children are taught how and when it applies. Who among us hasn't heard from a parent, "You do not get to do as I do. You must do as I say?" That's exactly the prerogative of leadership. Perhaps not enough children are guided through the educational system so that they come out not as cowed followers, fearful of breaking the rules and thinking the rule and following it is more important than the work to be done, but rather emerge as leaders who have the critical thinking skills to know when and why a rule shouldn't apply.

Earlier I offered one example of Founding Fathers' recognition of the principle in The Constitution. There is another: the expressly granted right of juries to nullify existing laws. If jurors feel the law an defendant has violated is a bad law, they can ignore it altogether and find for the defendant, even though s/he broke the law. Again, that's leadership; it's the freedom granted by The Constitution and it's one that in the founders' day, any juror would have been expected to exercise when appropriate.

Of course, in the founders' day, the only folks who could ever have been seated on a jury were all well educated, keen thinking land owners. These days, just about any damn fool who's reached the age of majority can be a juror. Indeed, attorneys often don't want the shrewdest thinkers on a jury, the easier it is to manipulate them and cloud the issues at hand. And God forbid a jury actually know about jury nullification, let alone be encouraged to decide on the basis of their conscience about the laws on record. That makes winning cases much harder for prosecutors and it lessens the power of lobbyists and their clients who spend tons to get laws passed in their favor.

Surely we don't want the state to lose cases because the law is unfair? Their job, in concert with the police, is to identify and punish offenders, and the basis of measuring their success is how many cases they win.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 03-12-2015 at 10:26 AM..
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 01:28 PM   #63
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9057
Rep
8,036
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

I grew up in a "legal" family and have never heard of this jury nullification. At least in all the juries I have served in Cali, the judge makes a point of telling us we must follow the law as written, and not make our own judgment about the merits of the law, only how the facts of this case indicate guilt or innocence to the letter of the law.

And it's totally fine if you , as the leader, make a conscious decision to throw away the law. That does NOT make you above the law and subject to the consequences of your CHOICE to break the law. The ends do not justify the means, not in this society.
Appreciate 0
      03-12-2015, 03:07 PM   #64
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
I grew up in a "legal" family and have never heard of this jury nullification. At least in all the juries I have served in Cali, the judge makes a point of telling us we must follow the law as written, and not make our own judgment about the merits of the law, only how the facts of this case indicate guilt or innocence to the letter of the law.

And it's totally fine if you , as the leader, make a conscious decision to throw away the law. That does NOT make you above the law and subject to the consequences of your CHOICE to break the law. The ends do not justify the means, not in this society.
Well, there is a very fine illustration of how much the "powers that be" don't want the public to be aware of jury nullification. I presume too that you aren't of African American descent and/or well versed on the civil rights struggle in the American courts. Jury nullification played a role in gaining legal equality for blacks.
I'm sorry I don't have articles that specifically oppose the idea of jurors using their nullification power. I don't because the legal community and the entities that rely upon them to ensure that they can "buy" the outcomes they want are of one mind about it. Quite simply, a mistrial will be declared if it becomes known that any attorney involved in a case informed the jurors about jury nullification.

Quite frankly, law makers and judges don't want common citizens assessing the merit of a given law itself. Their position is that the the law is on the books and therefore it's validity and righteousness is a foregone conclusion. Well, there are still sodomy laws one the books aren't there? Need I say more?

Regardless of what one thinks about jury nullification, there can be no denying that U.S. was founded on, among other things, a basic belief that some of the laws to which it was subject were unjust. In the case of the colonists, jury nullification wasn't available as a recourse. Only revolt would do.

It is within that context then that one finds the U.S. a nation, that for all it's current laws, manipulations of laws, hiding behind laws, etc., was founded on the principle that "bad" laws/rules need not be followed when they constrain one's freedom or are just wrong-headed. Indeed, breaking the law when one feels it the right thing to do is among the most American of things one can do.

Red:
Yes, they most certainly do that. If you read some of the opinion pieces above, you'll see that, that is what judges say, is one thing everyone agrees they do indeed say.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2015, 07:16 AM   #65
Efthreeoh
Lieutenant General
United_States
6577
Rep
13,951
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I get what you are saying, but that still remains the purview and prerogative of leadership. Lesser mortals, followers, may make the sort of inference you suggest, but then they aren't leaders. If/when the time comes that they are, they will surely say "rules be damned" at some point or other.

Surely every child is taught this really not at all difficult concept, although perhaps not enough children are taught how and when it applies. Who among us hasn't heard from a parent, "You do not get to do as I do. You must do as I say?" That's exactly the prerogative of leadership. Perhaps not enough children are guided through the educational system so that they come out not as cowed followers, fearful of breaking the rules and thinking the rule and following it is more important than the work to be done, but rather emerge as leaders who have the critical thinking skills to know when and why a rule shouldn't apply.

All the best.
Tony, children are not adults. Children do not have the decision-making capacity that adults (should) have, which is why they "get told what to do." If you are taking some position that as a "Leader" Hillary decided "screw the rules, I'm going to use my private e-mail on my private server", because she, as a leader, knows better than us children (citizens of the US, who give her the power of leadership - please not forget that part...) on best how to conveniently protect official US foreign communications, it is somewhat laughable.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission.
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2015, 08:48 AM   #66
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I get what you are saying, but that still remains the purview and prerogative of leadership. Lesser mortals, followers, may make the sort of inference you suggest, but then they aren't leaders. If/when the time comes that they are, they will surely say "rules be damned" at some point or other.

Surely every child is taught this really not at all difficult concept, although perhaps not enough children are taught how and when it applies. Who among us hasn't heard from a parent, "You do not get to do as I do. You must do as I say?" That's exactly the prerogative of leadership. Perhaps not enough children are guided through the educational system so that they come out not as cowed followers, fearful of breaking the rules and thinking the rule and following it is more important than the work to be done,but rather emerge as leaders who have the critical thinking skills to know when and why a rule shouldn't apply.
Are you really trying to make the argument that certain rules apply to "the common people" but not to "the leaders?"

And do you really believe that ignoring government policy and storing government-related emails on a private server is a rule that should be broken?

The hypocrisy that permeates some peoples' minds knows no boundaries. If it had come out that Karl Rove or Cheney had been using a private email account for government communications during the Bush years, people, including you, would have lost their f$%king minds.
__________________
Current: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Sold: 2013 BMW 335is Coupe
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.




g20
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST