• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Andrew McCabe, Ex-F.B.I. Official, Will Not Be Charged in Lying Case

Do you understand the difference between lying and lacking candor? Apparently not.

For some people "lying" means "making a factual statement that I do not want to hear" and "lacking candour" means "not making a false statement that I do want to hear".
 
The FBI fired him for good reason but we'll see what happens when the Durham report comes out.

And if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and if that investigation doesn't prove that she was NOT impartial, then it would be absolutely imperative to hold a subsequent investigation to both prove that she was NOT impartial AND to find out why the previous investigation did not reveal **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H**;

and it will be imperative to continue investigating until such time as **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** finally comes out (or the heat death of the universe occurs [which ever comes first]).
 
The only time the DOJ won't indict is when there is a reasonable possibility that if they did, a jury would acquit.

IN other words, found not guilty.

Close, but not quite accurate. The DOJ will not indict when there is no reasonable possibility that a jury will convict. If you define "reasonable chance" at 25% (for the sake of discussion) then that means that if the DOJ thinks that there is a 75% chance of obtaining a conviction, then it would indict but if the DOJ thought that there was a 75% chance of an acquittal it would not indict. I have no idea what percentage the DOJ uses to define "reasonable chance" but it is most certainly less than 50% and higher than 10%.
 
Close, but not quite accurate. The DOJ will not indict when there is no reasonable possibility that a jury will convict. If you define "reasonable chance" at 25% (for the sake of discussion) then that means that if the DOJ thinks that there is a 75% chance of obtaining a conviction, then it would indict but if the DOJ thought that there was a 75% chance of an acquittal it would not indict. I have no idea what percentage the DOJ uses to define "reasonable chance" but it is most certainly less than 50% and higher than 10%.


The size of the chance is inversely proportional to the size of the target


You might in indict a corner drug store owner with a 60% chance of conviction, no one is going to notice
if you lose the case.

No prosecutor is going to try and indict a Secretary Of State, or someone of similar stature, unless they are 100% sure ( an open and shut case )
simply because no prosecutor wants to become famous for losing such a large case. It could destroy one's career. This is what people don't get about why Comey decided not to prosecute Hillary. She'd hire a team of super lawyers who would tear apart the prosecutor's case, whereas some poor little guy would not have the resources to do that anywhere near as effectively.

The above fact has nothing to do with law and everything to do with political and economic reality.
 
Last edited:
No, the KKK were always Democrats though some, like these mentioned in the article, did come to realize the racism and corruption within the Democratic Party.

Yeah, nothing spells Dems = KKK like the fact that 90% of blacks for for democrats, these days,



They KKK were "dixiecrats', once upon a time, and that time and long since passed.

The switching of parties was gradual, but most blacks voted for FDR and even back then most blacks, because of lincoln, were republicans.
Since FDR, the DNC had evolved to become the party of the disenfranchised, the disadvantaged, and the working class. This appealed more and more to blacks, as they gradually switched their allegiances. Conversely, KKKers gradually went the other way.

LBJ's "civil rights bill" was about that time which cemented KKKers leaving the DNC, noting that repubs voted against that bill.

NO KKK could any longer be a dem that supported civil rights for black folks, so they all switched, most of them, anyway,

See how proudly the KKK displays Trump on the front page of their rag?

crusader.jpg

Blacks became Democrats the Day the KKK & Dixiecrats moved to the Republican Party | Urban Intellectuals

The KKK began to show more support for the Republican Party not only because of Democratic support for civil rights but also because President Lyndon B. Johnson publicly condemned the Klan during a speech in 1965 and announced that four Klansmen had been arrested for the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama.[5]

A recent study shows the influence the KKK has had in the Republican Party since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. This study focused on 10 states which hold heavy Klan voting activity. The results of this study show a statistical rise in voting for the Republican Party since the 1960s, and specifically in the 1960s and into the 1970s.[6]

more reading

Thread by @ashtonpittman: "How Racists Went R: From 1964-2018 —1964— A 65% Dem Senate & 59% D House pass the Civil Rights Act. Dem Pres. Lyndon Johnson signs it. R […]"

PolitiFact | No, the Democratic Party didn’t create the Ku Klux Klan
 
Yeah, nothing spells Dems = KKK like the fact that 90% of blacks for for democrats, these days,
That's right but it's not because of the racist history of the Democratic Party.
They KKK were "dixiecrats', once upon a time, and that time and long since passed.
Dixiecrats or Democrats they were all the same.
The switching of parties was gradual, but most blacks voted for FDR and even back then most blacks, because of lincoln, were republicans.
Since FDR, the DNC had evolved to become the party of the disenfranchised, the disadvantaged, and the working class. This appealed more and more to blacks, as they gradually switched their allegiances. Conversely, KKKers gradually went the other way.
Sure and it was the social programs which led them to the Democrats. The KKKers were always Democrat.
LBJ's "civil rights bill" was about that time which cemented KKKers leaving the DNC, noting that repubs voted against that bill.
In fact theree were a larger number of Republicans voting for the Bill than Democrats.
NO KKK could any longer be a dem that supported civil rights for black folks, so they all switched, most of them, anyway,
Where did they switch to?
See how proudly the KKK displays Trump on the front page of their rag?
And what does that mean to you? That the President is a member of the KKK?

You seem to be into revisionist history. Do you believe the KKK were Republicans, that they enforced segregation, created the Jim Crow Laws, fought for slavery, etc.? YouTube
 
The size of the chance is inversely proportional to the size of the target

Well as your examples point out, it's certainly proportional (whether directly or inversely) to something and "size of the target" is certainly in the mix, However "size of the target x size of the crime" might be somewhat more accurate.

...

The above fact has nothing to do with law and everything to do with political and economic reality.

You are quite right. I rather suspect that the disinclination to prosecute "high profile defendants" has something to do with the fact that (in many jurisdictions) prosecution decisions are made by people who have to get elected (in which both political and economic factors have a large effect) rather than on "upholding the law without fear or favour".
 
That's right but it's not because of the racist history of the Democratic Party.
Dixiecrats or Democrats they were all the same.

Indeed, at that time, they were. However, after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, those "Dixiecrats" almost unanimously became "Republicans".

Sure and it was the social programs which led them to the Democrats. The KKKers were always Democrat.

Quite right - UNTIL they became Republicans.

In fact theree were a larger number of Republicans voting for the Bill than Democrats.

Quite true. The vote was 285-126 in the House (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107) and 72-18 in the Senate (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).

However the number of people with a "Big 'D'" after their name who voted AGAINST the bill were primarily "Dixiecrats" (who ended up having a "Big 'R'" after their name in subsequent elections because they has switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Where did they switch to?

They switched to the Republican Party.

And what does that mean to you? That the President is a member of the KKK?

To me it doesn't mean that any more than the fact that President Obama had a "Big 'D'" after his name meant (to you) that Mr. Obama was a member of the KKK. On the other hand, if you actually believe what you are saying, then you HAVE to either

  1. believe that Mr. Obama was a member of the KKK;
    *
    or
    *
  2. be unable to understand the meaning of the word "change".

You seem to be into revisionist history. Do you believe the KKK were Republicans, that they enforced segregation, created the Jim Crow Laws, fought for slavery, etc.?

If you look at the actual people involved (rather than whether they had a "Big 'D'" or a "Big 'R'" after their name, you will see that the same people who had formerly had a "Big 'D'" after their name when they were "enforcing segregation and creating 'Jim Crow' laws (the fighting for slavery' had been over for almost 100 years), ended up having a "Big 'R'" after their name when they could no longer "enforce segregation and create 'Jim Crow' laws (the fighting for independence had been over for almost 100 years). What they then did was everything in their power to frustrate the efforts of those who were attempting to END segregation and ELIMINATE 'Jim Crow' laws.
 
Well as your examples point out, it's certainly proportional (whether directly or inversely) to something and "size of the target" is certainly in the mix, However "size of the target x size of the crime" might be somewhat more accurate.



You are quite right. I rather suspect that the disinclination to prosecute "high profile defendants" has something to do with the fact that (in many jurisdictions) prosecution decisions are made by people who have to get elected (in which both political and economic factors have a large effect) rather than on "upholding the law without fear or favour".


It has everything to do with the consequence of failure.

Not so much with someone small, but severe with someone large.

The gravity of the offense is a factor, of course. On the Email server, there were only 3 that were actually marked confidential, and they were ruled as mistakes. When Comey said over "100" were confidential, since they weren't actually marked confidential, he was giving an opinion. Moreover, there was no evidence that anyone was actually harmed, or that any foreign government hacked her server.

Imagine what high powered defense attorneys could do with that in a court of law.

That is why she wasn't prosecuted. That plus the fact that no prosecutor is in the mood to attempt to put a former first lady behind bars on such a thin sin. The gravity of the offense just wasn't grave enough. While many armchair politicos, some who had law degrees, spouted off "well, I would have prosecuted" which is easy to do from a distance, they are not in the hot seat, mindful of the ramifications of failure.
 
That's right but it's not because of the racist history of the Democratic Party.
Dixiecrats or Democrats they were all the same.
I meaningless statement. "Dixiecrat" means blue dog dems, conservative dems who were gainst civil rights for blacks. the DNC has evolved to oppose the values of the former Dixiecrats.

No, they are not the same. But, I understand that is serves your agenda to conflate the two.
Sure and it was the social programs which led them to the Democrats. The KKKers were always Democrat.
KKKers started jumping ship with FDR, this continued but was accellerated by passage of the Civil Rights act, and after LBJ, there were very few KKKers in the DNC. They are all republicans.

I really don't give a damn who they were 50 years ago. Today they are republicans, and you will have to live with that fact, a fact which begs the question: why are white supremacists republicans?
Meditate on that.
In fact theree were a larger number of Republicans voting for the Bill than Democrats.
Where did they switch to?
IN any vote, especially prior to Newt Gingrich, a portion of the opposing party will support just about any bill that is put forth. That fact is really irrelevant to the premise here.
And what does that mean to you? That the President is a member of the KKK?
You can't have it both ways. You are trying to assert that because of KKK being dems, historically speaking, that dems are racist.

That is what you are implying, because that idea, as false as it is, serves your agenda.

But, if the reverse were true, and it is, currently, it can no longer serve your agenda, now can it?

But, it does serve the democrat agenda, and rightfully so. For obvious reasons, white supremacists are members of the republican party. We are going to continue to point out that fact.

Now, that doesn't mean republicans, on the whole, are white supremacists, but it does mean, on the whole, they are espousing values in common with white supremacists

The distinction is important.
You seem to be into revisionist history. Do you believe the KKK were Republicans, that they enforced segregation, created the Jim Crow Laws, fought for slavery, etc.? YouTube


You seem to be putting words into my mouth.

Read my rebuttals with more carefulness. It doesn't matter who they KKK were,

Which ever party they were, they were always against equality for blacks.

Now, that doesn't mean that republicans are against equality for blacks.

But, when it comes to the vote, I think the evidence if very clear that republicans want as few blacks to vote as possible. See? That's consistent with KKK values, though it's not as extreme, it's in their direction, and that is good enough for them to choose the GOP to join.
 
It has everything to do with the consequence of failure.

Absolutely. And, if one of the possible consequences is that you are likely to get booted off the bench (or out of the prosecutor's office) because a whole lot of the people in your electoral district do not LIKE your decision (despite the fact that it is factually and legally impeccable) then there is a distinct tendency to "enforce the law" in a manner that is contrary to (or at least different from) what the law actually is.

Not so much with someone small, but severe with someone large.

I suspect that you would find that the results of a "black box" survey would produce results similar to the results from a "black box" survey that I did concerning "breach of charter rights" in Canada (read as "violation of constitutional rights" in the US) where the courts tended to NOT DIS-allow greater "infringements" for the more serious crimes and lesser ones for the lesser serious ones.

The gravity of the offense is a factor, of course. On the Email server, there were only 3 that were actually marked confidential, and they were ruled as mistakes. When Comey said over "100" were confidential, since they weren't actually marked confidential, he was giving an opinion. Moreover, there was no evidence that anyone was actually harmed, or that any foreign government hacked her server.

The term is "de minimis" (roughly "The law does not concern itself with insignificant things.").

what high powered defense attorneys could do with that in a court of law.

Actually it wouldn't take much "high power" to shred the government's case.

That is why she wasn't prosecuted. That plus the fact that no prosecutor is in the mood to attempt to put a former first lady behind bars on such a thin sin. The gravity of the offense just wasn't grave enough. While many armchair politicos, some who had law degrees, spouted off "well, I would have prosecuted" which is easy to do from a distance, they are not in the hot seat, mindful of the ramifications of failure.

The whole thing could likely have been defused if Ms. Clinton had gone on record as saying something along the lines of:

After talking with the investigators, the prosecutors, and with my own lawyers I admit that I was unnecessarily lacking in supervision on the way that my emails were being handled. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't - NOT because it violated any laws, but because it possibly gave an opportunity for unauthorized people to get access to information that they weren't entitled to have. Fortunately I was lucky and no one actually took advantage of that possibility. In future I intend to ensure that stricter controls are in place and I urge everyone who is even slightly associated with the operation of the American government to do the same.

after which the prosecutors could say something along the lines of:

We agree completely with Ms. Clinton's remarks and are equally thankful that no unintended access was given, accidentally, to people who shouldn't have had it.

This would have been along the lines of how the entire "Lewinskygate" issue could have died a quick and natural death had Mr. Clinton, publicly, stated something along the lines of

Did she give me a blowjob? Yes she did. It wasn't a very good one either.
 
I meaningless statement. "Dixiecrat" means blue dog dems, conservative dems who were gainst civil rights for blacks. the DNC has evolved to oppose the values of the former Dixiecrats.

No, they are not the same. But, I understand that is serves your agenda to conflate the two.

KKKers started jumping ship with FDR, this continued but was accellerated by passage of the Civil Rights act, and after LBJ, there were very few KKKers in the DNC. They are all republicans.

I really don't give a damn who they were 50 years ago. Today they are republicans, and you will have to live with that fact, a fact which begs the question: why are white supremacists republicans?
Meditate on that.

IN any vote, especially prior to Newt Gingrich, a portion of the opposing party will support just about any bill that is put forth. That fact is really irrelevant to the premise here.

You can't have it both ways. You are trying to assert that because of KKK being dems, historically speaking, that dems are racist.

That is what you are implying, because that idea, as false as it is, serves your agenda.

But, if the reverse were true, and it is, currently, it can no longer serve your agenda, now can it?

But, it does serve the democrat agenda, and rightfully so. For obvious reasons, white supremacists are members of the republican party. We are going to continue to point out that fact.

Now, that doesn't mean republicans, on the whole, are white supremacists, but it does mean, on the whole, they are espousing values in common with white supremacists

The distinction is important.



You seem to be putting words into my mouth.

Read my rebuttals with more carefulness. It doesn't matter who they KKK were,

Which ever party they were, they were always against equality for blacks.

Now, that doesn't mean that republicans are against equality for blacks.

But, when it comes to the vote, I think the evidence if very clear that republicans want as few blacks to vote as possible. See? That's consistent with KKK values, though it's not as extreme, it's in their direction, and that is good enough for them to choose the GOP to join.

You know, FDR nominated Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, and he had been a member of the Klan. He turns out to be one of the greatest defenders of civil rights in the history of the Supreme Court. Those who want to harp on Democrats being members of the Klan are taking a dishonestly selective view of history.

Today, it is Republicans on the Supreme Court who gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It is Republican congressmen who vote against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions, and it is Republican states that are passing laws making it hard for Blacks to vote.

It is Trump who the Klan support today.
 
I meaningless statement. "Dixiecrat" means blue dog dems, conservative dems who were gainst civil rights for blacks. the DNC has evolved to oppose the values of the former Dixiecrats
Yes, of course they have mostly evolved, though there is still work to be done by the Democratic Party.
No, they are not the same. But, I understand that is serves your agenda to conflate the two
.When George Wallace ran for Presidency he ran as a Democrat and no one claimed he was a "Dixiecrat", He did quite well also.
KKKers started jumping ship with FDR, this continued but was accellerated by passage of the Civil Rights act, and after LBJ, there were very few KKKers in the DNC. They are all republicans.
Really? Do you know who these KKK Republicans are?

I really don't give a damn who they were 50 years ago. Today they are republicans, and you will have to live with that fact, a fact which begs the question: why are white supremacists republicans?
Meditate on that.
You should care about history. How many of these Supremacists are Republicans and how many Democrats are Fascist? It does matter, btw, who the KKK was and which party they belonged to.
IN any vote, especially prior to Newt Gingrich, a portion of the opposing party will support just about any bill that is put forth. That fact is really irrelevant to the premise here
Facts are never irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. You are trying to assert that because of KKK being dems, historically speaking, that dems are racist
. Of course they are. Who passed the Jim Crow Laws? That doesn't mean they haven't changed but they have taken it a step further and now try to pin that tail on the Republicans, which is an easily refuted lie.
But, when it comes to the vote, I think the evidence if very clear that republicans want as few blacks to vote as possible. See? That's consistent with KKK values, though it's not as extreme, it's in their direction, and that is good enough for them to choose the GOP to join.
What evidence do you have that "republicans want as few blacks to vote as possible"?
 
Last edited:
You know, FDR nominated Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, and he had been a member of the Klan. He turns out to be one of the greatest defenders of civil rights in the history of the Supreme Court. Those who want to harp on Democrats being members of the Klan are taking a dishonestly selective view of history.

Today, it is Republicans on the Supreme Court who gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It is Republican congressmen who vote against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions, and it is Republican states that are passing laws making it hard for Blacks to vote.

It is Trump who the Klan support today.
Yes, of course FDR would would install a member of the KKK. It helped him in the South. However,

"After serving in the U.S. Army (1917–19) during World War I, Black resumed the practice of law in Birmingham. His successful defense of a Protestant minister accused of killing a Roman Catholic priest drew the favourable attention of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and in 1923 Black joined the organization. Although he openly opposed the Klan’s activities, he understood that its support was a prerequisite for political success in the Deep South. Therefore, even after his resignation from the KKK in 1925, he maintained good relations with its leaders".

And,

"Elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in 1926, Black won considerable acclaim for his investigation of utility lobbyists but was criticized for his opposition to the Wagner-Costigan anti-lynching bill, which he believed would offend white Southerners". Democrats are still trying to keep Black people on the plantation to this day.

[/I]
 
You know, FDR nominated Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, and he had been a member of the Klan. He turns out to be one of the greatest defenders of civil rights in the history of the Supreme Court. Those who want to harp on Democrats being members of the Klan are taking a dishonestly selective view of history.

Today, it is Republicans on the Supreme Court who gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It is Republican congressmen who vote against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions, and it is Republican states that are passing laws making it hard for Blacks to vote.

It is Trump who the Klan support today.
Here's more evidence on the Democratic hero FDR.

"In 1935 attempts were made to persuade Roosevelt to support the Costigan-Wagner bill. However, Roosevelt refused to speak out in favour of the bill. He argued that the white voters in the South would never forgive him if he supported the bill and he would therefore lose the next election.

"Even the appearance in the newspapers of the lynching of Rubin Stacy failed to change Roosevelt’s mind on the subject. Six deputies were escorting Stacy to Dade County jail in Miami on 19th July, 1935, when he was taken by a white mob and hanged by the side of the home of Marion Jones, the woman who had made the original complaint against him. The New York Times later revealed that “subsequent investigation revealed that Stacy, a homeless tenant farmer, had gone to the house to ask for food; the woman became frightened and screamed when she saw Stacy’s face.”


Most people support Donald Trump today. Why is that relevant?
 
Back
Top Bottom