The People VS. Evita, Criminal Case File

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Michael

Yet you would vote for Elon Musk, the crony of cronies? The insider of insiders? The Great Pretender?

That guy doesn't exist without government funding that he then calls capitalism. I don't think he could build a Tinker Toy car without a government paycheck.

Gimmee a break!

You seem to be intent on choosing outright evil over all others.

Michael

Musk is financing the creation of new technology, in particular the storage of electrical energy.  If success that will make solar and wind generation of electrical power practical to support heavy industry (which is does not do at present).  What has the Donald created besides Hotels and Gambling casinos on the Boardwalk.  The Donald is fit to live in a Parker Brothers  Monopoly (tm)  game kit.  

I am interested in science, new technology and deep ideas.  The Donald has done nothing on these fronts.  

[Jonathan]

31 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Musk is financing the creation of new technology, in particular the storage of electrical energy.

Musk is financing it, or Musk and tax dollars are funding it?

 

32 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If success that will make solar and wind generation of electrical power practical to support heavy industry (which is does not do at present).

And what if its not successful? Will taxpayers get their money back?

 

33 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What has the Donald created besides Hotels and Gambling casinos on the Boardwalk.  The Donald is fit to live in a Parker Brothers  Monopoly (tm)  game kit.

Ah, what Trump has done is as simple as playing a game! But yet you haven't accomplished what he has. At least not yet. Why don't you show us how it's done. Show us how easy it is!

 

35 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am interested in science, new technology and deep ideas.  The Donald has done nothing on these fronts.

Great! You've got a boner for science! And you can be bought off with science. Now we know.

J

[turkeyfoot]

How does the lay person comprehend Comeys findings with what happened in similar cases? 

Regarding intent and "how similar things have been handled in the past".

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

"the FBI director was clearly ignoring the US code itself, where in Section 793, subsection (f),"Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", it makes it quite clear that intent is not a key consideration in a case like this when deciding to press charges, to wit:

 

 

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

[BaalChatzaf]

59 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Musk is financing it, or Musk and tax dollars are funding it?

 

And what if its not successful? Will taxpayers get their money back?

 

Ah, what Trump has done is as simple as playing a game! But yet you haven't accomplished what he has. At least not yet. Why don't you show us how it's done. Show us how easy it is!

 

Great! You've got a boner for science! And you can be bought off with science. Now we know.

J

It is Musk's money they is going into batteries and the Tesla.   He is getting some funding from NASA for his developmental space craft. 

I am interested in science.   Next to war,  science what humans are best at. 

And don't knock science.  It was Salk and Sabin doing biology that fixed it so you don't have to worry about Polio every summer. 

[merjet]

32 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is Musk's money they is going into batteries and the Tesla.   

Government money, too. Link.

[KorbenDallas]

Morning Joe producers show a RNC ad that is a great montage of cut scenes alternating between Hillary and Comey--perfectly illustrating a series of lies, and have some comments about it...

I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor, but I think this whole thing came down to not wanting to call Obama as a witness, him being culpable because he knew of it as well... would the FBI had to bring charges against Obama..?

I hope Comey gets asked questions like these tomorrow.

Edited July 7, 2016 by KorbenDallas
(still holding out for Justice)

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

Government money, too. Link.

Subsidies or not,  Musk  knows technology.  What does  the Drumpf know?  And the Drumpf has done government business too.

See:  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/11/nation/la-na-trump-20110511

Trump has thrived with government's generosity

The potential presidential candidate and opponent of big government has relied on tax breaks and federal funding to build his real estate empire.

May 11, 2011|By Geraldine Baum, Tom Hamburger and Michael J. Mishak, Los Angeles Times

• •  

  • Email

    Share

  •  

 

Donald Trump, the developer and would-be presidential candidate, portrays himself as a swashbuckling entrepreneur, shrewder and tougher than any politician, who would use his billionaire's skills to restore discipline to the federal government.

In his disdain of big government, however, Trump glances over an expensive irony: He built his empire in part through government largesse and connections.

From his first high-profile project in New York City in the 1970s to his recent campaigns to reduce taxes on property he owns around the country, Trump has displayed a consistent pattern. He courted public officials, sought their backing for government tax breaks under extraordinarily beneficial terms and fought any resistance to deals he negotiated.....

 

In America there are government fingerprints on -everything-.  

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

Government money, too. Link.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

A tax break is not the same thing as the government giving you a paycheck.

A tax break is the government telling you it will not confiscate your money (even though it might confiscate money from others). The government giving you money it took from someone else is a hell of a lot different.

Since when is not forfeiting money you already have a paycheck?

Musk gets paychecks out of your and my pockets. Trump merely gets to keep his own money.

Those are not the same things.

Your argument is a nice mental sleight of hand for people who like slavery, but not for free men and women.

Do we really need to go into examples of something so darn obvious?

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

My brother, trying hard to hold onto some kind of wishful thinking, was wondering if the reason Comey didn't request an indictment (and didn't take any questions at that announcement), was because he has a much bigger hammer he is going to drop - bribery charges relating to the Clinton foundation and Teneo. (By the way, Dick Morris reports that about 700 not yet released emails went from Hillary's State Dept. staff to Teneo or the Foundation and that works out to around 25 a day - that is a lot of activity from people on Hillary's staff, as they drew state dept. salaries, and may well tie closely to payments to Bill or the foundation.  These are the emails that the State Dept. won't release until sometime well into Hillary's first term as president.)

Is Comey a man who is honest enough and courageous enough to call a crime a crime and pursue it even if the criminal is named 'Clinton'?  Or, was he pressured or bought?  Or, is he really a partisan hack and we just didn't see that?  Or, does he have some kind of bizarre boyscout complex where he thinks that he helped the country by trashing the request for an indictment that he knew would only generate conflict and be turned down by the DOJ?  That last seems like pretty thin soup.  The only way to believe that the man is honest and courageous enough to match his previously held reputation and to match the currently held respect for the FBI, is to assume that he is still pursuing the Clintons and plans to cut loose with some big guns.  But, again, that feels a lot like wishful thinking... like a Charlie Brown-Lucy-football situation.

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is Musk's money they is going into batteries and the Tesla.   He is getting some funding from NASA for his developmental space craft.

"Some" funding?

 

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am interested in science.

Well, then, if you're interested in science, then that justifies anything in the name of science!

 

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Next to war,  science what humans are best at.

Prove that scientifically.

 

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And don't knock science.

Who knocked science?

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

A tax break is not the same thing as the government giving you a paycheck.

A tax break is the government telling you it will not confiscate your money (even though it might confiscate money from others). The government giving you money it took from someone else is a hell of a lot different.

Since when is not forfeiting money you already have a paycheck?

Musk gets paychecks out of your and my pockets. Trump merely gets to keep his own money.

Those are not the same things.

Your argument is a nice mental sleight of hand for people who like slavery, but not for free men and women.

Do we really need to go into examples of something so darn obvious?

Michael

 

Yeah, it's like someone saying that a government's refraining from thrashing you with a bullwhip is a benefit that you received -- you were only able to accomplish something due to the government's largess of not whipping you, you couldn't have done it without them.

[Jonathan]

52 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

My brother, trying hard to hold onto some kind of wishful thinking, was wondering if the reason Comey didn't request an indictment (and didn't take any questions at that announcement), was because he has a much bigger hammer he is going to drop - bribery charges relating to the Clinton foundation and Teneo.

If there's a bigger hammer that he's going to drop, I would guess it would be dropped on people connected to and infected by Hillary who aren't as protected/insulated/careful as she has been. Indict/convict several, watch Hillary throw them under the bus, and then watch them retaliate and cough up lots of details and additional evidence.

But I doubt that that will happen.

 

55 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Is Comey a man who is honest enough and courageous enough to call a crime a crime and pursue it even if the criminal is named 'Clinton'?  Or, was he pressured or bought?  Or, is he really a partisan hack and we just didn't see that?  Or, does he have some kind of bizarre boyscout complex where he thinks that he helped the country by trashing the request for an indictment that he knew would only generate conflict and be turned down by the DOJ?  That last seems like pretty thin soup.  The only way to believe that the man is honest and courageous enough to match his previously held reputation and to match the currently held respect for the FBI, is to assume that he is still pursuing the Clintons and plans to cut loose with some big guns.  But, again, that feels a lot like wishful thinking... like a Charlie Brown-Lucy-football situation.

Yeah, I think it's wishful thinking.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

53 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

 

Prove that scientifically.

 

study history.  It stands out like sore thumb or an exploding bomb. 

[Brant Gaede]

On 7/5/2016 at 2:53 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

what has she done while being President????

The impeachment/removal process is to be applied to Presidents who have committed what Congress deems to be  high crimes and misdemeanors. 

So far Hillary is as innocent as you are I.  She has not been indicted for felony or misdemeanor nor has she been convicted.  No indictment, no crime.  In a properly conducted trial the judgement of innocence or guilt  is much more objectively reached than when we apply moral judgments.   In a trial we are guided by who/what/when/where/why.  In moral judgement we are guided by approval or disapproval. 

Now if Hillary is elected (a very likely outcome) and she mismanages critical information and data then there is a basis for impeachment and possibly removal.

PS. There is no "moral case".  Only legal cases matter.  Morality is opinion.  Guilt or innocence of an indicted offense is evidence based and established during a trial.  

Who convicted Hitler? You know crap about morality. Political philosophy is built on morality. If morality is an opinion then so too political philosophy then so too all that legal crap you've wrapped yourself around. A conviction in a court of law is then only a matter of the jury's "opinion."

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Who convicted Hitler? You know crap about morality. Political philosophy is built on morality. If morality is an opinion then so too political philosophy then so too all that legal crap you've wrapped yourself around. A conviction in a court of law is then only a matter of the jury's "opinion."

--Brant

No one.  Hitler did the world a service by killing himself....

Jurors swear an oath that they will be guided by evidence permitted by the Court.  It is not just mere "opinion".  Evidence enters into the verdict also. 

Have you ever sat on a  jury?  I have.  And we reached our verdict on the evidence. 

[SteveWolfer]

A person is "innocent until proven guilty" under the law.  It isn't just opinion, because without it there is a serious lack of legal protection for individual rights.  Requiring government to use rational evidence, and to take nothing from a person without judicial process, joins the moral (individual rights) to the law (legal protection) and does so with reason.

[Brant Gaede]

24 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No one.  Hitler did the world a service by killing himself....

Jurors swear an oath that they will be guided by evidence permitted by the Court.  It is not just mere "opinion".  Evidence enters into the verdict also. 

Have you ever sat on a  jury?  I have.  And we reached our verdict on the evidence. 

As a matter of curiosity--what was the alleged crime?

Would you consider judging a morality "on the evidence"? You see your "evidence" comes alive off the law. If references the law.

I never sat on a jury as I was excused 4 or 5 times because I was taking care of an invalid. The last time they demanded a doctor's letter so I just ignored the summons thereafter. If you reply the the summons they merely stick that and their response into the data bank and it goes to the next level (lower?). The last time they summoned me must have been over a decade ago. I simply tossed it into the trash. The irony is I would serve on a jury if I could. I really couldn't before. I never ducked jury duty. I just started ducking the summons because some bureaucrat wanted a letter from mommie. I was always honored they had taken me at my word before. You don't have to force people onto juries, just ask for volunteers for a jury pool or walk down the street and beg passerbys. That, of course, would be beneath the dignity of a bureaucrat.

I've developed some respect for beggars, even those who hide their Mercedes around the corner (True Story!). You see, they are out there working, just like I am. To some extent even (some) robbers. They are out there working too. (If you want to beg on street corners get a cute dog.) Remember in Atlas Shrugged how Rand was sorta on the side of the "looters' out there looting sorta honestly unlike the less honest ones in Washington? In a few months I'll be working indoors instead of outdoors, but I've been meeting so many interesting people I'm beginning to feel like Dickens. Last week--or the week before--a middle aged woman was semi-hysterical afraid she had cancer. I calmed her down. She kissed me right on the kisser. Today I ran into her again. She doesn't have cancer according to her doctors but does have a 5cm aneurysm which is not life threatening.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

To Steve's point laws aren't normative--laws set a baseline of what not to do, but there is plenty of amorality and immorality that can be done without violating law.  Morality, at least in the Objectivist sense, is what should be and can be (attained by and practiced by Man, on Earth).

In the case(s) with Hillary, she's morally guilty as hell but law and justice failed so we're seeing her now without moral consequence.  It seems Paul Ryan wants to morally try her in the upcoming Congressional hearings, as an attempt to deny her the presidency--what she seeks most--so if this becomes true, it would give her moral consequence.  But Hillary wouldn't be likely to accept it as such, but I'd like to think Justice had prevailed.. in some way.

(And to shore up one neglected aspect in my post... a person who operates on consequence should be avoided if possible, but if that can't be done, chaos normally surrounds a person like that, so look out... )

 

[Brant Gaede]

41 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

A person is "innocent until proven guilty" under the law.  It isn't just opinion, because without it there is a serious lack of legal protection for individual rights.  Requiring government to use rational evidence, and to take nothing from a person without judicial process, joins the moral (individual rights) to the law (legal protection) and does so with reason.

At first I thought you had gone didactic, but on reflection I think a little too abstract without some good empirical leavening with examples. Sometimes people like you and I can get too concise; the bones need flesh albeit not as much as the flesh needs bones all needing life.

--Brant

running out of rum--damn! (All gone, all gone; woe is me)

[Brant Gaede]

23 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

To Steve's point laws aren't normative--laws set a baseline of what not to do, but there is plenty of amorality and immorality that can be done without violating law.  Morality, at least in the Objectivist sense, is what should be and can be (attained by and practiced by Man, on Earth).

In the case(s) with Hillary, she's morally guilty as hell but law and justice failed so we're seeing her now without moral consequence.  It seems Paul Ryan wants to morally try her in the upcoming Congressional hearings, as an attempt to deny her the presidency--what she seeks most--so if this becomes true, it would give her moral consequence.  But Hillary wouldn't be likely to accept it as such, but I'd like to think Justice had prevailed.

(And to shore up one neglected aspect in my post... a person who operates on consequence should be avoided if possible, but if that can't be done, chaos normally surrounds a person like that, so look out...)

What needs to be understood--let me give you an example: decades ago the press and the Democrats--but I repeat myself--ran a Republican US Senator out of office for literally chasing his secretary around his desk. Today I wonder why she didn't have the balls to kick him in the balls if it was such a big bad thing. I mean--let's fuck; that's what people are supposed to do to keep the DNA going. Right? Call it the biological imperative. I suspect she was pissed because she didn't get fucked and all the good things that might come from being fucked by a US Senator. But the Dems? When they do wrong there is no wrong; it's all for la causa! Venezuela Here we come! Hit and beat that big brass drum! The statists have the collectivist moral imperative so they all cluster together, osmotically feeding--never mind real thinking--off each other. The individualists? Not that stuff. They behave like they should--like individualists. An idividualistic philosophy--call it Objectivism (natch)--doesn't provide enough glue or moral gravity per se to counter the heavy "impotence of evil" (as so far constructed). Here comes Hillary.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

A person is "innocent until proven guilty" under the law.  It isn't just opinion, because without it there is a serious lack of legal protection for individual rights.  Requiring government to use rational evidence, and to take nothing from a person without judicial process, joins the moral (individual rights) to the law (legal protection) and does so with reason.

Good old Due Process...

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

study history.  It stands out like sore thumb or an exploding bomb. 

I didn't ask for your emotional opinion, I asked for scientific proof to back up your statement.

Weird. You gushingly profess your love of science, but then when asked to provide some to back up your opinion, you're suddenly not at all interested in science!

J

[william.scherk]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is Musk's money they is going into batteries and the Tesla.   He is getting some funding from NASA for his developmental space craft.

"Some" funding?

How much, and for what?  The Space Exploration company, from what I initially gather, gains revenue from contracts. Instead of relying on the Russians or the French to service the ISS, NASA contracts with SpaceX. Is this illicit?

Another example of perhaps-illicit is the subventions in the electric car market.  Various state and federal gravy-trains give grants or tax credits for zero-emission vehicles to the final consumer --  Tesla benefits by a lower relative price-point. Similarly, and to Tesla's benefit, international research at the cutting-edge of battery technology is subsidized by the state in most advanced industrial nations of the world  (under the rubric of R&D, if not national industrial strategy).   Particularly intent on driving invention is the Japanese state. Guess where part of Tesla's advances are grounded ... ?

Here's another way of looking at it: if we can't give a figure for SpaceX's capitalization, and we can't give details or dollar figures to the NASA contracts with SpaceX, then how to compare and make a reliable analysis of the benefits Musk relies upon to drive his enterprises?

And, to bring it back to the comparison made between 'capitalist Trump' and 'capitalist Musk,' should we inquire into the aids and benefits Mr Trump's enterprises have accrued from government largess or institutions, even one or two steps removed?

Is it a fair comparison to leave out such things as 'taking advantage of the system'? -- to suggest the Musk is some awful embodiment of the worst of cronyism?  Perhaps a closer look at Mr Trump's tax records will show us something. 

(I have nothing but admiration for a capitalist who services the moneyed via the 'luxury' market. Trump's reputation and brand provide the Best of the Best in hotels, resorts, golf courses, condominiums, game shows and so on.  I give Mr Trump his due -- the brand is worth money in and of itself.  It generates profits. It doesn't matter to me that Trump is one percent cleaner or one percent dirtier than the average purveyor of luxury brands -- in terms of taking advantage of subventions, tax rules, grants, write-offs, restructuring of debt and so on. That is that nature of business today in all lands. Or so it seems. 

That said, how much dirtier or cleaner are all the Musk enterprises in comparison? If Mr Trump were principal executive in SpaceX (he is not), would he seek contracts to put his rockets' payloads in space?  Would he not contract with NASA?  And if he did so, would that instantly make him one of the corrupt, arch crony of cronies, downright evul?  I am doubtful so far ...)

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A tax break is not the same thing as the government giving you a paycheck.

A tax break is the government telling you it will not confiscate your money (even though it might confiscate money from others). The government giving you money it took from someone else is a hell of a lot different.

Since when is not forfeiting money you already have a paycheck?

Musk gets paychecks out of your and my pockets. Trump merely gets to keep his own money.

Those are not the same things.

 

Yeah, it's like someone saying that a government's refraining from thrashing you with a bullwhip is a benefit that you received -- you were only able to accomplish something due to the government's largess of not whipping you, you couldn't have done it without them.

Did somebody want Elon Musk bull-whipped by the forces of Good?  

-- to the points raised by Michael, it is difficult to plug them into a comparative analysis.  Starting with taxes, tax credits, and contracts.  If it turns out that Mr Trump paid taxes at the four-percent level in 2014, for example -- this is just an example of genius tax accounting, right? Taking advantage of every loophole and back-door to make the tax load as light as possible ... this is good business, no? 

I think it is easier on the mind to be specific, not fuzzy, in drawing comparisons. The pile-on Elon Musk strikes me as bizarre, if made on the basis of him being an egregious actor.  To compare him to Trump seems also odd in some measures. One is not seeking to leverage his business success into political power.  One is not seeking to revolutionize space transport and land transport.  

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Democrats--but I repeat myself--ran a Republican US Senator out of office for literally chasing his secretary around his desk. Today I wonder why she didn't have the balls to kick him in the balls if it was such a big bad thing. I mean--let's fuck; that's what people are supposed to do to keep the DNA going. Right?

Names? Dates? Let's fuck, Brant.

Edited July 7, 2016 by william.scherk
Tone

[turkeyfoot]

The FBI had twisted Apples arm during the San Bernardino murders. It made a case for Apple to make the Iphone population insecure by providing a backdoor for the FBI (with warrant) to break encryption under the Writs Act. The authors contention is by doing the FBI can do nothing to prevent international hackers from compromising the Iphones software 

Subsequently they figured it out on their own.

"There’s nothing relevant on the iPhone 5c, CNN reports, according to U.S. law enforcement officials familiar with the matter."

https://audioboom.com/boos/4787058-iphone-vs-fbi-susan-landau-science-worcester-polytechnic-institute

"(1). Law enforcement contends that there should be no “warrant-proof” spaces: When there is a valid court order, agents should be able to access communications devices and systems. Technologists (2) and many former government security officials (3–5) see this differently: Weakening smartphones' security provided by encrypted communications is counterproductive to long-term security. The ability to secure data on smartphones is crucial not just for the private information present on phones but also because of the ability of smartphones to securely authenticate users to online accounts. Rather than rely on out-of-date approaches to law enforcement, the FBI must develop 21st-century investigative capability.”  

I think it undermines its mission when it cant tell the difference between a common criminal (HC) and the American Iphone public (whose security interests are ignored by its cybersecurity models).

Political influence is inherent in these investigations. FBI, in these 2 cases has overshot, by a mile in misunderstanding intention and gross negligence. And its almost tragic in its repercussions, perceived and real. Justice in this sense isnt an objective measure rendering amorality alive and well.

The lesser point is the comments Comey made about HC wont be remembered. Its the absence of an indictment. And that allows her to cavalierly stride the stage with an imperial manner and claim the moral high ground against someone of questionable civility.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I didn't ask for your emotional opinion, I asked for scientific proof to back up your statement.

Weird. You gushingly profess your love of science, but then when asked to provide some to back up your opinion, you're suddenly not at all interested in science!

J

Study history.  It is a matter of record.  

Since humans invented agriculture  there has always been war (wars are fights over land,  women  and fame).  There has not been a technology invented by humans that was not soon turned to murder, theft and war.