I like this article for three reasons.

1) Uses a Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla picture, always a good thing.

2) Written by Wiessman Colin Delany.

3) Talks about an aspect of campaigns I admit I don't pay much attention to: the digital campaign and underlying infrastructure (or lack thereof in Trump's case.)

http://www.epolitics.com/2016/06/09/trum...m-fallout/

This may only be funny to those of us who have Bernie Sanders supporter friends and relatives, but it made me laugh out loud.

http://www.theonion.com/article/id-you-p...-say-53070

Will Trump actually make it out of the convention as the nominee? Lamar Alexander seemed to think possibly not. At this point, even though I'm supporting the Dem nominee, I'd support the Republicans putting someone on the ticket who actually seems like a viable president. Trump is already hurting our country with speeches like the ones he's been giving since Orlando. I can see a number of elected Republicans openly supporting Clinton or Johnson before this is all over.

We already have the past two Republican presidents and the previous Republican nominee saying they won't vote for Trump. That has to be unprecedented.

I hate to even say it because it's still far-fetched, but there is starting to be a scenario where Johnson could win this thing. Enough republicans defect from Trump and enough Bernie supporters come over because of the libertarian stands on issues like marijuana and gay rights to get him up to around 20%. Then Hillary gets nominated, following which the truth comes out about the classified information, and she is either indicted (in which case democrats probably reconvene to pick another nominee) or not. In either event, the democrat nominee is wounded and more people defect. In the end it comes out something close to 38-32-30, and Johnson carries enough states (New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska could happen, maybe a few more, maybe even an Arizona or Texas or Missouri) to prevent anybody getting to 270. Then it goes to the house, R's have the majority but don't really like Trump and can't stand Hillary, lots of D's aren't strongly in favor of Hillary either, and Johnson emerges as a compromise.

It's a long, long way from happening, but it's a lot closer to possible today than it was a year ago.

(06-15-2016 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's a long, long way from happening, but it's a lot closer to possible today than it was a year ago.

I'm not sure it would even be the strangest thing to happen this cycle....

It's going to be both Clintons (maybe even Chelsea), the President, Elizabeth Warren, and (I imagine) Bernie Sanders against Trump and.... Who?

(06-15-2016 11:53 AM)JSA Wrote:  It's going to be both Clintons (maybe even Chelsea), the President, Elizabeth Warren, and (I imagine) Bernie Sanders against Trump and.... Who?

Probably this guy.

(06-15-2016 11:53 AM)JSA Wrote:  It's going to be both Clintons (maybe even Chelsea), the President, Elizabeth Warren, and (I imagine) Bernie Sanders against Trump and.... Who?

Among that group, the only one I would want to see as President is "Who".

Trump likes Owls

(06-27-2016 11:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump likes Owls

Me too.

FBI not recommending charges against Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/f...index.html

How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

(07-05-2016 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

Were charges likely to be levied due to negligent behavior without regards to intent? Wouldn't some sort of intent be required to potentially be present for the FBI to suggest she be prosecuted?

I ask because I have no legal training, at all.

(07-05-2016 10:38 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  FBI not recommending charges against Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/f...index.html

I am shocked, shocked...

(07-05-2016 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

Were charges likely to be levied due to negligent behavior without regards to intent? Wouldn't some sort of intent be required to potentially be present for the FBI to suggest she be prosecuted?

I ask because I have no legal training, at all.

Not a lawyer, but to the understanding of this lay person, negligence does not need intent. In fact, intent changes the charge. Think negligent homicide versus murder.

In any case, the relevant statutes have a provision for negligence, which can result in up to 10 years in prison. Leaving the back door unlocked and forgetting to set the security system does not get you off the hook.

(07-05-2016 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

Were charges likely to be levied due to negligent behavior without regards to intent? Wouldn't some sort of intent be required to potentially be present for the FBI to suggest she be prosecuted?

I ask because I have no legal training, at all.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "very" is.

(07-05-2016 02:05 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

Were charges likely to be levied due to negligent behavior without regards to intent? Wouldn't some sort of intent be required to potentially be present for the FBI to suggest she be prosecuted?

I ask because I have no legal training, at all.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "very" is.

That's what it seems. Sounds like the FBI would have desired better evidence, and likely some intent, to suggest that charges be pressed. But is my understanding correct that this still goes to the DOJ and that the FBI's findings are just a suggestion and the DOJ could still pursue?

(07-05-2016 02:05 PM)Baconator Wrote:  It depends on what the meaning of the word "very" is.

Well done!

(07-05-2016 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 02:05 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How does "very careless" not equal negligence?

Were charges likely to be levied due to negligent behavior without regards to intent? Wouldn't some sort of intent be required to potentially be present for the FBI to suggest she be prosecuted?

I ask because I have no legal training, at all.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "very" is.

That's what it seems. Sounds like the FBI would have desired better evidence, and likely some intent, to suggest that charges be pressed. But is my understanding correct that this still goes to the DOJ and that the FBI's findings are just a suggestion and the DOJ could still pursue?

That's about as likely as Bill and AG Lynch only talking about grandkids and golf.

The applicable law:

(f) 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.