Slashdot Mirror

More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.

http://fortune.com/2017/09/29/...

https://lawnewz.com/crazy/doj-...

Remember Microsoft's racist AI? Or how about the racist algorithms being used in criminal sentencing?

The problem with developing an AI to detect "hate crimes" is "garbage in, garbage out": you can never create a race-free AI if you train it using bad data which may be racially biased. And because we cannot train AIs without input data, and because the input data is all bad--all we would be doing is hard-coding bad assumptions into inscrutable and unaccountable algorithms.

Do not underestimate the power of the prez. He alone is the ONLY person in the US who cannot be indicted on any federal crime while prez. Further, it is a matter of debate if he can be indicted on any state level crime. ... It has never been tested.

You've contradicted yourself, you make the claim that the prez is immune, then say it has never been tested. There is no real legal precedent for the POTUS to be indicted while president. The closest instance of that was the Reagan/Watergate scandal, and the decision was never legally made. More reading here, and a more detailed analysis from 1997 here.

My own interpretation is that the POTUS is not any more immune than any other elected official, considering a Senator could be summoned for jury duty or personally sued for something, but I am no legal scholar and my opinion means jack.

Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.

He had boarded. All restrictions and regulations about bumping people are before a passenger boards.

"So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract."

Once he is on, then he could potentially be thrown off because of "Refusal of Transport", but...

"The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc."

Therefore it's not a lawful order. If a cop tells you to fight another person for his or her amusement or sing Auld Lang Syne, you don't have to follow it.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...

the most recent disastrous trumpcare bill was done in secret. I guess "trust me" legislation is still in force, huh science denier?

As long as Trump does it, they are cool with it.

By the way, Trump' s former national security advisor Michael Flynn is willing to testify before federal and congressional investigators in their probe into Russian meddling in the US elections, but only if he is granted immunity. http://lawnewz.com/legal-analy...

Hehe, this shit just gets better all the time. I have the corn popping, and you like your tequila neat or in a mixer? the smoke is getting thick, and the party is ready to roll.

So a ban in say Ohio hurts Washington State sales tax?SCOTUS has already told federal judges that they cannot impose national injunctions just like this. You are an idiot, it will get tossed out. http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...

Actually the Judge needs to learn the law. There was a reason why the other judges didn't impose a nation wide injunction, SCOTUS has told them they can't do it for matters like this.
This actually goes case by case showing the Judge is an idiot.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...

The judge is way out of bounds and will quickly be overturned http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...

An open and ongoing investigation is powerful leverage to avoid cutting intelligence budgets, or revoking mandates.

There cannot be an ongoing investigation, because presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.

To play devil's advocate here...

The government must prove that the defendant: (1) knowingly and willfully made or concealed a (2) materially (3) false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation within (4) the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the federal government.

So they need to prove that she knowingly lied, which can be a difficult challenge. If she testified with what she believes was the truth, even though it was later to be found untrue, they have to determine that she knew it was untrue to get her with perjury. If there is no proof that she was lying on purpose, no perjury charge can be applied.

This article helps explain why she won't be charged with perjury:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...

He's only a rapist if you redefine rape

Sure, but he's an alleged rapist by any meaning of the term.

“At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn’t a prosecutable casebut I have no patience for suggestions that we conducted ourselves as anything but what we are – honest, competent, and independent. Those suggesting that we are “political” or part of some ‘fix’ either don’t know us, or they are full of baloney (and maybe some of both),” Comey wrote.

Actual copy of the relevant portions which prove he knew there was no "There" there, and the angry Teagaggers could go choke as far as he was concerned

Nothing. You're automatically cleared as soon as you take office. (Actually you start getting intel briefings as soon as you're nominated.)

Although no one's imagined first act as President is to pardon herself...

even some of the FBI investigators on the case were not allowed to read them, the chairman of the congressional oversight comittee is not allowed to read them, and the ones the congress is allowed ot see are currently only accessible to members of congress inside a special snoop-proof documents room in the Capitol called a SCIF.

Mishandling those documents, including just moving themfrom a secure serrver to an insecure one, is a felony; a violation of the plain-text of the law ( 18 U.S.C. 793(f) ) and one of the few Federal laws that explicitly requires no "intent". That particular law was specifically written to even cover and punish recklessness and incompetence.

so, yeah, prison for email on the wrong server.

If it's good enough to jail you or me for the same actions, then it's good enough for Hillary.

LAW: Learn it. Love it. Live it. (or else live under a capricious tyranny like most humans in the dark past of human history)

Clinton's Success stories:
Movie : Clinton Cash Movie:Free
Movie Fact Sheet: Fact Sheet
Clinton Death Count: Death list Dont forget Julian assanges head attorney hit by a train, the father of the doc that did hillary's checkup who released some info.
Bill Clinton's Rape Sheet: Victim list Not sure if the 19 year old when he was in the CIA in oxford is on that one at 19 or his supposed best friend at 16 either.
Hillary getting a rapist off, while accusing a 12 year old virgin of being hot for older men: Article with sources here is the interview with her last month: Interview with victim 2016 Because you know a 12 year old wants stitches in her vagina.

I dont have to link hopefully what Comey said about all the lies, treason, and death she caused with her pay for play clinton foundation or the fun mails that keep coming out with FOIA. All though this one should give you an idea of the kind of treason we are talking about: Treason so high this guy can't even get access to the pages


Those of you that say I'm voting for Hillary because Trump is a meanie or a scoundrel, take a look at what this woman has caused already. If she is elected you will have done the world the biggest proof is in the pudding injustice ever.

Scott Adams has an interesting take on things.

tl;dr? People suck at predicting the future and are irrational, so people making predictions about a Trump presidency are going to suck and be irrational. Great. I guess Scott Adams wouldn't mind spending a night alone with Charles Manson. Oh, right, there's "not perfectly capable of predicting the future", there's "world events are much more complex than 'and then the US President made X happen'", and then there's "it's not irrational to have an opinion based upon past behavior" (although one could argue that all of the negatives of Trump as a person might be good as Trump as a president, but that's really a side discussion (possibly worth having)).

My only question is---if Trump is so racist, sexist, and prone to violent reactions--why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits?

Donald Trump Was Once Sued By Justice Department For Not Renting To Blacks

Sexual harassment cases?

Exclusive: Inside The $125 Million Donald Trump Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that?

Employment Lawsuits Have Plagued Donald Trump - "The various lawsuits that have been filed by hundreds of Trump’s employees levy a variety of allegations, including union intimidation, ..." And yea, not likely what you meant but then two out of three ain't bad, right?

I mean everything that comes out about him basically makes him seem like a mild-mannered Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg...

Steve Jobs was an asshole. Zuckerberg? Haven't read enough about him, but let's presume he's an asshole too. Neither would be good as US President. Neither would Bill Gates. (Neither would Steve Wozniak for basically the opposite reason.) And just to make it a point, the issue per se that you can't have an asshole as a good US President. But being CEO or similar as a result of being an asshole is NOT the approach to being good at any sort of diplomacy or relations with other countries. But being an asshole to become a Senator? That might actually be the right approach, even if you can't otherwise stand the person. In any case, like I said, it's not per se about being an asshole. It's just that + CEO really tells you what sort of asshole you're dealing with.

As far a celebrity children, his don't seem particularly bad nor attention-seeking (which IMHO speaks well for him).

Uh, fuck his children? I mean, unless he's pimping his children out to get votes (more than the rather meek "he'd be good for the job" BS everyone in politics has their kid say)... And I'm tempted to say the same of his really shitty wife-swap-marriage life, since see above about assholes.

Lets watch if other news agencies so explicitly include that type of information going forward

No, they won't. Apparently, NBC had this same news, but chose to sit on it, rather than report it.

Just following the Joe Biden Rules. You know, those that Joe Biden justified as what the majority of all preceding Presidents had done - holding off on nominating a SC judge in an election year. Why shouldn't we listen to good ol' Joe?

Gates doesn't seem to think he said what people are saying he said. He was quoted today saying "I was disappointed because that doesn’t state my view on this."

Nuanced? Or freaking out about the blow-back?