I agree with you here. I don't know what the hell Trumpet's problem is here. He likens it to having mail delivered to the wrong house. Well, you still aren't allowed to OPEN IT before returning it.
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Secondly I never said it was a nice thing for the Republicans to do, just that it wasn't illegal. It certainly isn't a watergate where someone is going to get impeached which is what was implied.
Do I wish the Republicans hadn't cut this corner? Sure. Do I wish the Democrats would not use the race card and obviously manipulate civil rights cases via holding up the appointment of judges. Of course I wish that as well.
I know the two wrongs don't make a right, but how do you prove this sort of thing otherwise? It is obvious from the memos that the NAACP had judge appointments held up to control the outcome of a particular case. Is judge tampering any less worse than jury tampering? There likely isn't a law against it, but it is much worse than looking at a memo in my book. Especially since the memo proves the tampering.
Yeah, that generally happens when people mired in partisanship and rherotic meet someone who is truly fair and balanced.
Somehow, those words just don't mean what they used to. I hope this sentiment was meant as food for thought for everyone, not just towards certain people.
Somehow, those words just don't mean what they used to. I hope this sentiment was meant as food for thought for everyone, not just towards certain people.
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Nick
It's not the same as a coupon sheet because you don't have to open a coupon sheet. You had to open these files. You had to see that hey, these files don't belong to me and then go through the process of opening them. It's wrong to do this. Hell, if I get my neighbor's coupons in the mail and they are in an envelope it still is wrong for me to open them.
Has he named a name or a charge or just expressed being upset?
Quote:
Originally posted by Orrin Hatch
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in late November confirmed that the ongoing probe has found Republican staff wrongdoing. One unidentified staff member was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, Hatch said.
I'm not sure why you can't admit there was wrongdoing. Everyone else has.
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Ah. I think I see. Sort of like this?
"Tum te tum, I'm a Republican, tum te tum, checking my email... oh, Duncan's coming to town! How lovely. Can't wait. Let's just check the news on Fox. Tum te tum... George Bush still president, then. Good, good. Just do a quick Google for the number of that excellent Vietnamese restaurant downtown that Brian took me to... Good GOD! Look at these private memos from a private folder on the server we share with the Democrats that have just replaced my desktop! This is dynamite!"
OK. Your analogy's helping us to work things out a bit.
So. It's like we live in a shared house where the mail all goes on the floor.
No mistake from the postman: our mail all lands on the same mat.
You see my mail, you open my letters from the debt collector and the doctor and you put them on the door of the fridge for everyone in the house to see.
My fault's only in my choice of who I decide to share a house with.
Yes, you have invaded my privacy. How could you not?
That's closer, but of course those bills are supposed to come in an envelope that prevents me from seeing them. Much like how the Democratic files were supposed to require a password.
So suppose there was a "glitch" and while most of your mail comes in envelopes, a friend drops off a note, not in an envelope, through the mail slot. It just lands on the floor among the mail. Have I invaded your privacy? You would likely complain that I could have read to X spot and known the note was yours and not mine. You would complain that Y comment from me showed I had read past that spot. How do you prove this well enough for a criminal prosecution?
Was what I did regarding that note a nice thing? Probably not. But was it illegal? No.
Now to make this even more like the Democratic and Republican issue we need to have some shared business this note could effect. Your bills don't effect me. So lets say we have a roommate you don't like and want off the lease but whom I happen to enjoy.
The open note states that you intend to have a female friend claim the roommate had allegedly raped her. I make a copy of this note and give it to the police before hand and save copies for the press as well if it comes to that.
If your friend had put the note in an envelope, all this would have been avoided but through a "glitch" they didn't. They just dropped off the note.
I did something wrong in dealing with your note, sure. Much like I would lie to the man with the gun about the other man in the closet. But I would consider the false rape charge much worse. Bad enough to justify my actions.
The Democrats are showing racist intent in their memos. They don't want someone nominated who is Latino because it will make it harder to oppose him later if nominated for the Supreme Court. That is racist.
Likewise manipulating which judges would be reviewing a case is very wrong in my book. Much more wrong than looking at some strategy notes.
It's not the same as a coupon sheet because you don't have to open a coupon sheet. You had to open these files. You had to see that hey, these files don't belong to me and then go through the process of opening them. It's wrong to do this. Hell, if I get my neighbor's coupons in the mail and they are in an envelope it still is wrong for me to open them.
The big difference here is the envelope in my book and the address. They are akin to file permissions on the computer. The permissions on the computer were supposed to insure that only people at the right address were able to open the envelope.
Because of the glitch, it would be more like the envelope having your title and address on it, and when you open it, you begin reading and discover it is not your letter.
The big difference here is the envelope in my book and the address. They are akin to file permissions on the computer. The permissions on the computer were supposed to insure that only people at the right address were able to open the envelope.
Because of the glitch, it would be more like the envelope having your title and address on it, and when you open it, you begin reading and discover it is not your letter.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer.
Nick
No, it's more like living in an apartment and getting 219's mail when you are 218 and opening it anyway. I guarantee you they knew those documents weren't theirs and they opened them anyway. That's utter crap.
So you're saying that Orrin Hatch is wrong? That's fine, if you'll stick to that. Just come out and say it though, so we all know where you stand.
Is it really so hard to understand the written word bunge? I said Orrin is covering his ASS. His statement was very clear in that it did not express anything illegal was done. I covered that and we all know how smart politicians are about using words to imply something, and even express empathy, concern or outrage while doing nothing about it.
Orrin is very right in what he said. However when you parse what he said, it is a classic CYA statement while not really advocating doing anything about it.
I'll tell you what. Find the Hatch statement that does more than express an emotion. Find what action he advocates. If you can find what action he advocates on this matter, I can tell you whether I support it or not. But you can't find the action because he didn't advocate any. He just expressed an emotion.
You are smart enough to know the difference between the two.
Here I'll do the Hatch imitation for you. Then you can be happy with me.
I am "outraged" that Republican staffers accessed and used these files. I am even more "outraged" that Democrats acted in a racist and manipulative manner according to these files.
There you have your emotions. No actions, but emotions. According to you, that is good enough right?
No, it's more like living in an apartment and getting 219's mail when you are 218 and opening it anyway. I guarantee you they knew those documents weren't theirs and they opened them anyway. That's utter crap.
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
Nick
Umm, it was a wrong used to create political gains. It was theft of intellectual property to gain a political advantage. That's TOTAL CRAP to put it bluntly.
Umm, it was a wrong used to create political gains. It was theft of intellectual property to gain a political advantage. That's TOTAL CRAP to put it bluntly.
Intellectual property? I'll be glad to read why you think some talking points are intellectual property.
Political advantage? Am I supposed to somehow believe that Republicans do this and Democrats don't? If Democrats can get ahold of some Republican material, you bet they would use it. I have no doubt about it. Likewise the Democrats were caught LYING in these memos. Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
Claiming that they are holding up judges because of competence yet they let the nominee go through after the case has been decided (I believe they held up the nomination for about 10 months if I recall correctly, then let it go on through) is tampering of the worst kind.
I consider both of those very high stakes political gains advanced by lies and manipulation. Do I hear a little "That's crap, bullshit, etc." from you over them?
What this really is about, with the wrongs on both sides, is the attempt by the Democrats to control via the judiciary that which they cannot control via legislation. If they would just stop lying about the reasoning for turning down judges, then no one would have to take steps, be they right or wrong, to call them out on their lies and manipulations.
Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
It may or may not have been illegal. We don't know, but it sounds like "it was just there and I couldn't help but see it" will be the Repubs' defense. It's kinda hard for me to imagine that it wasn't breaking some laws, but I'm sure they'll have some great ACLU lawyers to get them off.
Now, on the other hand, the Dems were engaging in "racism and judge tampering?" You've got some 'splainin to do on that...
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
Try again...
Quote:
"[Y]esterday's meeting focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them," the staffer wrote about the groups present. "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
You don't find it a little odd that out of ALL the Republican appointments to the court that Democrats have opposed that three are women, half are minority and they are characterized as "dangerous" because they are a minority?
Taking the word Latino and saying the person is dangerous because they could affect yoru power base, and should be stopped because of that reason is outright racism. They could have written in their own notes, for their own use, that he was simply a stealth conservative and nothing more. However they made note of the fact that he was Latino and that they believed this made him dangerous. That is their view and it is a racist one.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I agree with you here. I don't know what the hell Trumpet's problem is here. He likens it to having mail delivered to the wrong house. Well, you still aren't allowed to OPEN IT before returning it.
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Secondly I never said it was a nice thing for the Republicans to do, just that it wasn't illegal. It certainly isn't a watergate where someone is going to get impeached which is what was implied.
Do I wish the Republicans hadn't cut this corner? Sure. Do I wish the Democrats would not use the race card and obviously manipulate civil rights cases via holding up the appointment of judges. Of course I wish that as well.
I know the two wrongs don't make a right, but how do you prove this sort of thing otherwise? It is obvious from the memos that the NAACP had judge appointments held up to control the outcome of a particular case. Is judge tampering any less worse than jury tampering? There likely isn't a law against it, but it is much worse than looking at a memo in my book. Especially since the memo proves the tampering.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, that generally happens when people mired in partisanship and rherotic meet someone who is truly fair and balanced.
Somehow, those words just don't mean what they used to.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Somehow, those words just don't mean what they used to.
I just used those words for the inherent irony.
MY WIFE IS NOT AN I-RON!
-Peter Griffin
Originally posted by trumptman
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Nick
It's not the same as a coupon sheet because you don't have to open a coupon sheet. You had to open these files. You had to see that hey, these files don't belong to me and then go through the process of opening them. It's wrong to do this. Hell, if I get my neighbor's coupons in the mail and they are in an envelope it still is wrong for me to open them.
Originally posted by trumptman
Has he named a name or a charge or just expressed being upset?
Originally posted by Orrin Hatch
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in late November confirmed that the ongoing probe has found Republican staff wrongdoing. One unidentified staff member was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, Hatch said.
I'm not sure why you can't admit there was wrongdoing. Everyone else has.
Originally posted by trumptman
Trumpt's problem is he has seen these types of documents being discussed and it would be akin to getting the grocery store coupon sheet in the mail, not opening someone's gas bill.
Ah. I think I see. Sort of like this?
"Tum te tum, I'm a Republican, tum te tum, checking my email... oh, Duncan's coming to town! How lovely. Can't wait. Let's just check the news on Fox. Tum te tum... George Bush still president, then. Good, good. Just do a quick Google for the number of that excellent Vietnamese restaurant downtown that Brian took me to... Good GOD! Look at these private memos from a private folder on the server we share with the Democrats that have just replaced my desktop! This is dynamite!"
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nick:
OK. Your analogy's helping us to work things out a bit.
So. It's like we live in a shared house where the mail all goes on the floor.
No mistake from the postman: our mail all lands on the same mat.
You see my mail, you open my letters from the debt collector and the doctor and you put them on the door of the fridge for everyone in the house to see.
My fault's only in my choice of who I decide to share a house with.
Yes, you have invaded my privacy. How could you not?
That's closer, but of course those bills are supposed to come in an envelope that prevents me from seeing them. Much like how the Democratic files were supposed to require a password.
So suppose there was a "glitch" and while most of your mail comes in envelopes, a friend drops off a note, not in an envelope, through the mail slot. It just lands on the floor among the mail. Have I invaded your privacy? You would likely complain that I could have read to X spot and known the note was yours and not mine. You would complain that Y comment from me showed I had read past that spot. How do you prove this well enough for a criminal prosecution?
Was what I did regarding that note a nice thing? Probably not. But was it illegal? No.
Now to make this even more like the Democratic and Republican issue we need to have some shared business this note could effect. Your bills don't effect me. So lets say we have a roommate you don't like and want off the lease but whom I happen to enjoy.
The open note states that you intend to have a female friend claim the roommate had allegedly raped her. I make a copy of this note and give it to the police before hand and save copies for the press as well if it comes to that.
If your friend had put the note in an envelope, all this would have been avoided but through a "glitch" they didn't. They just dropped off the note.
I did something wrong in dealing with your note, sure. Much like I would lie to the man with the gun about the other man in the closet. But I would consider the false rape charge much worse. Bad enough to justify my actions.
The Democrats are showing racist intent in their memos. They don't want someone nominated who is Latino because it will make it harder to oppose him later if nominated for the Supreme Court. That is racist.
Likewise manipulating which judges would be reviewing a case is very wrong in my book. Much more wrong than looking at some strategy notes.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not sure why you can't admit there was wrongdoing. Everyone else has.
Peer pressure? Appeal to popularity?
Hey Nick, why don't you own slaves..... everyone else is/was doing it.
Sorry I thought I got over that line of reasoning in about third grade.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sorry I thought I got over that line of reasoning in about third grade.
So you're saying that Orrin Hatch is wrong? That's fine, if you'll stick to that. Just come out and say it though, so we all know where you stand.
Originally posted by BR
It's not the same as a coupon sheet because you don't have to open a coupon sheet. You had to open these files. You had to see that hey, these files don't belong to me and then go through the process of opening them. It's wrong to do this. Hell, if I get my neighbor's coupons in the mail and they are in an envelope it still is wrong for me to open them.
The big difference here is the envelope in my book and the address. They are akin to file permissions on the computer. The permissions on the computer were supposed to insure that only people at the right address were able to open the envelope.
Because of the glitch, it would be more like the envelope having your title and address on it, and when you open it, you begin reading and discover it is not your letter.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The big difference here is the envelope in my book and the address. They are akin to file permissions on the computer. The permissions on the computer were supposed to insure that only people at the right address were able to open the envelope.
Because of the glitch, it would be more like the envelope having your title and address on it, and when you open it, you begin reading and discover it is not your letter.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer.
Nick
No, it's more like living in an apartment and getting 219's mail when you are 218 and opening it anyway. I guarantee you they knew those documents weren't theirs and they opened them anyway. That's utter crap.
Originally posted by bunge
So you're saying that Orrin Hatch is wrong? That's fine, if you'll stick to that. Just come out and say it though, so we all know where you stand.
Is it really so hard to understand the written word bunge? I said Orrin is covering his ASS. His statement was very clear in that it did not express anything illegal was done. I covered that and we all know how smart politicians are about using words to imply something, and even express empathy, concern or outrage while doing nothing about it.
Orrin is very right in what he said. However when you parse what he said, it is a classic CYA statement while not really advocating doing anything about it.
I'll tell you what. Find the Hatch statement that does more than express an emotion. Find what action he advocates. If you can find what action he advocates on this matter, I can tell you whether I support it or not. But you can't find the action because he didn't advocate any. He just expressed an emotion.
You are smart enough to know the difference between the two.
Here I'll do the Hatch imitation for you. Then you can be happy with me.
I am "outraged" that Republican staffers accessed and used these files. I am even more "outraged" that Democrats acted in a racist and manipulative manner according to these files.
There you have your emotions. No actions, but emotions. According to you, that is good enough right?
Nick
Originally posted by BR
No, it's more like living in an apartment and getting 219's mail when you are 218 and opening it anyway. I guarantee you they knew those documents weren't theirs and they opened them anyway. That's utter crap.
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
Nick
Umm, it was a wrong used to create political gains. It was theft of intellectual property to gain a political advantage. That's TOTAL CRAP to put it bluntly.
Originally posted by BR
Umm, it was a wrong used to create political gains. It was theft of intellectual property to gain a political advantage. That's TOTAL CRAP to put it bluntly.
Intellectual property? I'll be glad to read why you think some talking points are intellectual property.
Political advantage? Am I supposed to somehow believe that Republicans do this and Democrats don't? If Democrats can get ahold of some Republican material, you bet they would use it. I have no doubt about it. Likewise the Democrats were caught LYING in these memos. Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
Claiming that they are holding up judges because of competence yet they let the nominee go through after the case has been decided (I believe they held up the nomination for about 10 months if I recall correctly, then let it go on through) is tampering of the worst kind.
I consider both of those very high stakes political gains advanced by lies and manipulation. Do I hear a little "That's crap, bullshit, etc." from you over them?
What this really is about, with the wrongs on both sides, is the attempt by the Democrats to control via the judiciary that which they cannot control via legislation. If they would just stop lying about the reasoning for turning down judges, then no one would have to take steps, be they right or wrong, to call them out on their lies and manipulations.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
It may or may not have been illegal. We don't know, but it sounds like "it was just there and I couldn't help but see it" will be the Repubs' defense. It's kinda hard for me to imagine that it wasn't breaking some laws, but I'm sure they'll have some great ACLU lawyers to get them off.
Now, on the other hand, the Dems were engaging in "racism and judge tampering?" You've got some 'splainin to do on that...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
Try again...
"[Y]esterday's meeting focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them," the staffer wrote about the groups present. "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
You don't find it a little odd that out of ALL the Republican appointments to the court that Democrats have opposed that three are women, half are minority and they are characterized as "dangerous" because they are a minority?
Taking the word Latino and saying the person is dangerous because they could affect yoru power base, and should be stopped because of that reason is outright racism. They could have written in their own notes, for their own use, that he was simply a stealth conservative and nothing more. However they made note of the fact that he was Latino and that they believed this made him dangerous. That is their view and it is a racist one.
Nick