Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Sparko]

It isn't. As Christians, we have other methods at our disposal since our battle is not in this physical realm, but in the spiritual one. The Theologian David Lipscomb had some interesting points on the subject,

The bible is chock full of people NOT sitting on their hands waiting for God to fix everything via miracles. God uses people and sometimes he even used evil people to accomplish his goals. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where the guy who did nothing for fear of messing up was the one who got chastised.

[carpedm9587]

Comey laid out a perfect case for indictment, then choked.

Comey laid out a case for ridiculously sloppy behavior (an assessment I agree with, given my background in IT) - not criminal behavior - and then said there was not adequate evidence to even indict. When the leader of the FBI, who has an essentially stainless record, and is himself a Republican, makes that statement - I am inclined to accept him at his word. Likewise, when he revealed the re-opening of the investigation in the final hours of the election, and explained why he did so - I accepted his explanation. Until I have cause to question his integrity - I'm not going to do so.

I did some digging on the email issue, CP, as much as anyone can from the comfort of their home and without access to the primary documents. Clinton is most definitely guilty of poor information management practices - but she is not the first and is unlikely to be the last. This is what I meant by "failure to surround herself with people who can supplement her knowledge gaps." It raises, in my mind, her judgment as a leadership figure and the potential for her to make similar judgment errors in office.

But nothing I found rises to the level of "criminal," despite all the hype from the right, Brietbart, and Fox.

[Sparko]

No. She was accused - and every investigation ever had by every official body found either no cause to indict or insufficient evidence for conviction. Hillary was tried in the media - not in the American judicial system. So she was not a "known criminal." As for being a liar - I did not find Ms. Clinton lied any more or less than the average politician.

No the FBI said that she did break the law but Comey said she would not be prosecuted. She was a criminal.

[Sparko]

You're not pro-life. Not as most people understand the concept, at any rate. You're using the term idiosyncratically, in much the same way you've been using so many other words on the forum since your return. Your view generally lines up with the pro-choice view as I've heard many pro-choicers put it. Many of the pro-choicers I know also believe that there should be no abortions. They believe that keeping abortion legal and supporting Planned Parenthood is the way to get there.

Depending on where they draw the line at "human" you could say every pro-choicer is "pro life" at some point. Carpe does the same but just draws the line further back than most pro-choicers.

[carpedm9587]

No the FBI said that she did break the law but Comey said she would not be prosecuted. She was a criminal.

I have not seen such an accusation by the FBI. Can you point me to the specific source?

[carpedm9587]

Depending on where they draw the line at "human" you could say every pro-choicer is "pro life" at some point. Carpe does the same but just draws the line further back than most pro-choicers.

Yes - all the way back at the beginning...

[Sparko]

Yes - all the way back at the beginning...

with the caveat that it has to be implanted to be human

[Sparko]

I have not seen such an accusation by the FBI. Can you point me to the specific source?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

[Cow Poke]

Comey laid out a case for ridiculously sloppy behavior (an assessment I agree with, given my background in IT) - not criminal behavior - and then said there was not adequate evidence to even indict.

Wow. Is THAT a biased statement, or what! Show me where he said there as not adequate evidence to indict.

Here ya go.

[carpedm9587]

Wow. Is THAT a biased statement, or what! Show me where he said there as not adequate evidence to indict.

Here ya go.

So I have reread it. And I did a spotted word search to verify my findings. The word "law" occurs once, in this statement:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

The word "criminal" occurs once, in this statement:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

I stand by my original post - which was NOT biased - it was based on the statements made, the evidence I have been able to examine as a private citizen, and my experience in IT.

[carpedm9587]

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

See my response to CP below.

As much as I have been accused of bias - your reading of this statement smacks of bias. Comey goes out of his way to distinguish between sloppy behavior and criminal activity in this statement. He explicitly does NOT accuse them of breaking the law, and specifically notes that there is inadequate evidence to file criminal charges or indict.

I stand by my original statement.

[carpedm9587]

with the caveat that it has to be implanted to be human

That wasn't a caveat - it was one of the three criteria I use to establish the beginning of a human being. I recognize you do not include it, so you will see me as advocating for permitting the "murder of an innocent human life." If you ever give me a viable reason for NOT including that criteria, I would reconsider the position. But so far you have not. You have clearly communicated your distaste, but distaste is not an argument.

[Cow Poke]

So I have reread it. And I did a spotted word search to verify my findings. The word "law" occurs once, in this statement:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

The word "criminal" occurs once, in this statement:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

I stand by my original post - which was NOT biased - it was based on the statements made, the evidence I have been able to examine as a private citizen, and my experience in IT.

Oh, bullpucky!

Why don't you actually read was written instead of doing a goofy "spotted word search"?

This is what you erroneously claimed....

Comey laid out a case for ridiculously sloppy behavior (an assessment I agree with, given my background in IT) - not criminal behavior - and then said there was not adequate evidence to even indict.

Here is the relevant part of the actual FBI statement from their website...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

That's a FAR cry from your claim that he said "there was not adequate evidence to even indict".

So, again, bullpucky!!!!

[Cow Poke]

He explicitly does NOT accuse them of breaking the law, and specifically notes that there is inadequate evidence to file criminal charges or indict.

Again, use actual quotes, rather than your biased rendering -- show where he actually said what you claim he said.

[Mountain Man]

Here is the relevant part of the actual FBI statement from their website...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

That's a FAR cry from your claim that he said "there was not adequate evidence to even indict".

My favorite is the premise that a reasonable prosecutor would shy away from a career-making slam-dunk case against a high-ranking, high-profile government official.