No. These indictments are written for public consumption and - as I've shown - disclose many things to the public, even the lay person, that aren't being adequately treated by the media.
It doesn't take long to read this statute, and to see it has nada to do with classification and classified docs. If you read the indictment you could eas…
No. These indictments are written for public consumption and - as I've shown - disclose many things to the public, even the lay person, that aren't being adequately treated by the media.
It doesn't take long to read this statute, and to see it has nada to do with classification and classified docs. If you read the indictment you could easily see that this is the law he is charged with violating in the first set of counts.
As I stated, TL:DR and you overestimated the reading ability of the public. In my training as a military training instructor back in 1962, I was told to write lesson plans at an 8th grade level.
That has now degraded to a 5th grade level.
I agreed with you, even complimented you, and yet you persist in maintaining a hostile relationship.
Thanks for that, I'm glad you can appreciate the substance of it, none of this should devolve into personal attacks, we are talking about things it shouldn't be uncomfortable to talk about. Orwell said it's most important to have the courage and the right to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 - ultimately he said he cares more about truth than anything else and I see Chomsky in the same light.
Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning.
One other thing to keep in mind is that one actually can be sued for liable in ny state for calling people names or saying false and defamatory things about someone online when the subject of it is not a "public figure" eligible for the enhanced first amendment protections afforded by Supreme Court decisions. People that participate in online chats that are published to a group often don't know this and mistakenly think that free speech protects any opinion they put online.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.
No. These indictments are written for public consumption and - as I've shown - disclose many things to the public, even the lay person, that aren't being adequately treated by the media.
It doesn't take long to read this statute, and to see it has nada to do with classification and classified docs. If you read the indictment you could easily see that this is the law he is charged with violating in the first set of counts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
As I stated, TL:DR and you overestimated the reading ability of the public. In my training as a military training instructor back in 1962, I was told to write lesson plans at an 8th grade level.
That has now degraded to a 5th grade level.
I agreed with you, even complimented you, and yet you persist in maintaining a hostile relationship.
Well done.
Thanks for that, I'm glad you can appreciate the substance of it, none of this should devolve into personal attacks, we are talking about things it shouldn't be uncomfortable to talk about. Orwell said it's most important to have the courage and the right to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 - ultimately he said he cares more about truth than anything else and I see Chomsky in the same light.
Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning.
One other thing to keep in mind is that one actually can be sued for liable in ny state for calling people names or saying false and defamatory things about someone online when the subject of it is not a "public figure" eligible for the enhanced first amendment protections afforded by Supreme Court decisions. People that participate in online chats that are published to a group often don't know this and mistakenly think that free speech protects any opinion they put online.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1010/public-figures-and-officials
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.