It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements. The DOJ’s only explanation has been that its lawyers either “lost focus” or that the “fact[s] receded in memory or awareness.”
It seems he disagrees with you.
He's punishing essentially innocent people assigned to the case.
Again, false.
It appears he has gone as far to bar any of the lawyers who have given false testimony in his court room from ever arguing in his court room again (given he can't disbar them himself)... it's punishment to ensure that future lawyers who come before him from the DoJ (or to courts in the states which make up this case) are reminded of the importance of ethics when acting as a lawyer?
because the Obama Administration is moving ahead while repealing the decision
Are you sure they are 'repealing' the decision? Though I guess that is the sort of thing an administration which doesn't respect the rule of law unless it says what they want it to say would attempt.
Assuming you mean 'appealing':
and judge retaliated against DOJ because the Obama Administration is moving ahead while appealing the decision
Nice fictitious narrative you've got there. Wants some facts?
The DoJ lawyers confirmed to the judge that these policies had not yet gone into effect at the time, and that they were not going to go into effect until a specific later date. The judge barred them from implementing the very same polices until after the case had completed... something which normally is within the power of a judge.
As it turns out, the DoJ 'misrepresented' material facts, such as the facts that the polices had quietly been implemented months earlier and had continued after the judges initial ruling.
You call this 'retaliation'? Most call this kind of activity: contempt of court, perjury and grounds for disbarment.
Tell you what, go in to court, assure the judge that you've not had a drink since that DUI you are accused of, have him bar you from any drinking until the case is over... see what happens if he finds out about the amount of drinking you did both before & after his ruling.
You give too much credit to the Bernard fans who as the Trotskyite wing of the party, still don't understand the risks of going up against the Stalinist wing.
Interestingly enough, thus far the judge has not blamed Loretta Lynch for this false statements... only former AG Eric Holder... who I agree, was more than a little unethical in his professional dealings.
The major question here is if the judge has the jurisdiction to issue this order.
Apparently you've not been keeping up with the degree of unethical behavior by the DoJ in this case.
He does not.
And you are a credible authority on this... because?
Considering the implications of a judge barring every justice department lawyer from any courtroom in 26 states,
Even IF he doesn't have the authority to do so, he has fired a beautiful warning shot across the bow of the DoJ and given serious ammunition to each of the 26 states fighting the unlawful amnesty which can & will be used in state courts given the behavior of DoJ lawyers before this judge.
I'd say he has overstepped his authority.
So finally, you acknowledge that this is in your opinion... which unlike that of the judge, has zero legal authority.
This judge should be removed from the bench.
How exactly do you envision that happening? The republican controlled House & Senate (which for the most part agree with the State's suit) impeaching them?
No no nononono no NO What is with this phrase? Why is it popular? Probably because it's the biggest easiest fucking cop-out in history.
Probably because for non sociopaths... it's true?
Animals are emotional creatures.
We call them 'instinctual' creatures, not emotional.
What distinguished human from animal is reason. Humans are rational creatures by nature.
Except for the fact that reason is not automatic. We are capable of rational thought, it does not mean we always use it... just ask my 4 year old, who like most kids under about 7 is somewhere along the sociopath spectrum.
Some humans act like animals and are completely immersed in their emotion at all times, always ignoring purpose and never reasoning.
Wow, a factual statement from you at last... I bet this isn't going to last.
Not so much the ones that are successful.
Note your use of the term 'not so much'... and not 'not at all shared with', so you acknowledge at least some successful people are driven by emotion, interesting.
Not so much the ones that command corporations. And the nature of an industry-leading corporation reflects this.
Organizations you have demonstrated yourself as not understanding the actual functioning of.
The only emotions that are valuable are those that support purpose. All other emotion is precluded by rules, protocol, and other concrete structures. The stuff of corporations. Humans are not fully in control of corporations. That is why corporations exist: to hold humans to their purpose, to their goals, so they do not err so much. To allow the best sides of each personality of power to attract each other to aid their common purpose. To create accountability. To create objectivity.
On it's own, there is nothing wrong with having some sociopathic leanings, and your belittling the nature of human emotion does out you as being on the less intelligent side of the sociopathic spectrum.
*drops the mic*
Given the push back against your illogical and only self reinforcing views, I really think you should reconsider that drop... like many other things.
And how is that not a subset of nullifying interference of human emotion?
Given humans are fully in control of the corporations, not unlike humans are in control of governments and street gangs... and humans are emotional creatures... how exactly do you nullify interference from human emotion?
When a company donates money to disaster relief... is there no emotion involved at all? Not even when the CEO sees bodies floating in a river?
When politicians pass a law criminalizing an activity which many dislike is there no emotion involved at all? Not even when they tearfully pledge to outlaw ____?
When a street gang decides to go to war with another street gang... is there no emotional involved at all? Not even when the brother of the leader got shot?
I'm sure it would be the usual setup of a physician ensuring the location of the heart is marked as a target,
Why the heart? The ribs can do a pretty good job of deflecting a bullet away from it's original path, your brain however (despite being surrounded by bone) is a far better target... though does tend to prevent an open casket wake/funeral.
Where do you think they are while waiting to be executed?
More so, slow walking of executions ends up imposing a sentence "no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death"
If Pfizer wants to take a stand then they should should employ the means available to any other citizen. If Pfizer wants new law then they should argue for it with duly elected lawmakers, not presume to make the law themselves.
So rare I hear someone supporting Citizens United around these parts, bravo!
More so, they are employing the same means available to other citizens... withholding consent.
Not everyone servers on a jury, let alone a capitol case where the jury has the option to impose the death penalty... but those that do are able to withhold their consent to impose that sentence, either by squirting the person or imposing life.
Ignored by many is that this is by no means free. Even if the chip manufacturer has a sample driver & code for making the FM radio work, it's still up to the device manufacturer to validate that it works on their particular device... and even sometimes then get the carrier to sign off on the code.
Given how many Android devices are effectively abandoned by their manufacturer after they are shipped... you might be able to convince manufacturers to support it going forward, but likely not for existing devices... doubly so when noting guarantees that the existing chip works as is (could be too susceptible to interference or not have sufficient antenna).
Or... only in 14% of cases have the police screwed up in a major way either with regards to not collecting enough evidence, not doing so in the right way, or worse charing the wrong suspect.
The more time you spend around someone involved in criminal law (on either side) you realize that the police do not screw up as much as you would otherwise think.
Precisely, and this is an interesting quirk of our legal system where we are to be judged by ones 'peers'... but where both sides will attempt to reject as may potential jurors as they can who may tilt the scales too much in the opposite direction.
As a software developer well into his second decade, I know I would never be able to serve on a jury with regards to anything technical because, just as I would expect anyone with any semblance of affiliation with #BlackLivesMatter activist to be rejected from a jury regarding a cop killing someone.
Are you playing some stupid game here with rules that make you look like an idiot, such as playing "devil's advocate" to take a side you know is utter bullshit? That would explain the idiocy, since I keep thinking you cannot possibly be as dense as you appear to be.
It's called picking your battles, you should look into it!
I have cited specific sources several times, you have failed to do so, almost falling back to the tired line of the helpless of "educate yourself!". It is clear you are no longer worthy of my time.
If you had paid attention in high school I would not need to would I?
Dunno about your HS, mine was rather boring and a waste of my time (not unlike this conversation)... which is why I went and got a GED and later a masters.
In short - people who are in charge of things tend to hear things about those those things (such as the National Guard etc) - I've got no idea why you are in denial of the obvious over what is really a side issue anyway.
That is different than what you've said. My focus has been on legitimate, approved access to *classified* information (clearly you've missed me highlighting the word, but then words don't have any specific meaning, do they?)
Which again, you are relying on the possibility she *may* have heard something... and that info *may* have traversed her personal email account... neither of which have you offered a smidgen of evidence of... so I'm going to conclude that you are a conspiracy theorist as much as anyone who screams "9/11 was an inside job" or chemtrails.
Unlike either of those, there is sizable evidence of wrongdoing by Sec Clinton in her use of email, and non regarding Gov Palin.
Look up the Pfizer stuff - Hillary's email stuffup looks as trivial as Palin's in comparison to a real scandal.
I'm familiar, perhaps you should look up my references to the FBI being able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
I dunno about you.. but 400k is a bit hard for many, even if you found an older one with a few issues for half the price, that is still a large amount of money for something you probably aren't going to use every weekend... and that aide from the storage and maintenance costs.
I'm going to stick with driving the 1600-1800 miles from WA to MN and stop to see a few folks on the way with the wife & kid along for the ride.
Then how about we have a more serious one instead of pointless nitpicking that ignores more serious issues.
Good idea, shame you keep insisting on it and deflecting.
Also, you calling bullshit on the irrelevant side issue ignores that the there are military based in Alaska and some of them are even under the direct control of the governor of Alaska?
You keep making such claims, yet fail to substantiate *ANY* of it. It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about... or are you one of those being paid by the Clinton campaign to 'correct' people on the internet?
Palin's emails were released, multiple outlets put them online, here is one that still is. It's reported that some 2200 pages were redacted in some way, to quote one article (notice how I keep quoting sources? You might try it.):
The state redacted more than 2,200 pages worth of materials, citing exemptions to public-records laws, including the privacy provision of the Alaska Constitution, attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege and executive and deliberative-process privileges.
So many named carve outs... and yet 'classified information', 'military secrets', & 'common sense from dbIII' aren't listed as reasons, odd that?
Yes, it is possible that *IF* classified information existed in the emails and was found, it accidently got lumped in with one of those other categories... only that still assumes that she had access in the first place, something you continue to have failed to prove she did.
If you cannot, I will accept your admission of defeat on this matter and treat your statements of "ZOMG! Sarah Palin did the same thing!" as the same sort of conspiracy theory as "9/11 was an inside job" I hear from similarly grounded people.
Slashdot Mirror
Which still is an implicit vote for Trump as it helps to split the Democrat vote.
While not a Trump fan myself, I will say "thank you!!!" on behalf of a friend who is one.
Really?
Wanna ask the judge? Why not read his ruling... which in the end is TFA
Here is just one juicy bit:
It seems he disagrees with you.
Again, false.
It appears he has gone as far to bar any of the lawyers who have given false testimony in his court room from ever arguing in his court room again (given he can't disbar them himself)... it's punishment to ensure that future lawyers who come before him from the DoJ (or to courts in the states which make up this case) are reminded of the importance of ethics when acting as a lawyer?
You forgot about the part where they said they wouldn't be handing out any permits and then until a certain date.
But why let facts get in the way?
First...
Are you sure they are 'repealing' the decision? Though I guess that is the sort of thing an administration which doesn't respect the rule of law unless it says what they want it to say would attempt.
Assuming you mean 'appealing':
Nice fictitious narrative you've got there. Wants some facts?
The DoJ lawyers confirmed to the judge that these policies had not yet gone into effect at the time, and that they were not going to go into effect until a specific later date. The judge barred them from implementing the very same polices until after the case had completed... something which normally is within the power of a judge.
As it turns out, the DoJ 'misrepresented' material facts, such as the facts that the polices had quietly been implemented months earlier and had continued after the judges initial ruling.
You call this 'retaliation'? Most call this kind of activity: contempt of court, perjury and grounds for disbarment.
Tell you what, go in to court, assure the judge that you've not had a drink since that DUI you are accused of, have him bar you from any drinking until the case is over... see what happens if he finds out about the amount of drinking you did both before & after his ruling.
You give too much credit to the Bernard fans who as the Trotskyite wing of the party, still don't understand the risks of going up against the Stalinist wing.
Interestingly enough, thus far the judge has not blamed Loretta Lynch for this false statements... only former AG Eric Holder... who I agree, was more than a little unethical in his professional dealings.
Apparently you've not been keeping up with the degree of unethical behavior by the DoJ in this case.
And you are a credible authority on this... because?
Even IF he doesn't have the authority to do so, he has fired a beautiful warning shot across the bow of the DoJ and given serious ammunition to each of the 26 states fighting the unlawful amnesty which can & will be used in state courts given the behavior of DoJ lawyers before this judge.
So finally, you acknowledge that this is in your opinion... which unlike that of the judge, has zero legal authority.
How exactly do you envision that happening? The republican controlled House & Senate (which for the most part agree with the State's suit) impeaching them?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Coming from you... that means... absolutely nothing.
I provided countless links in the previous discussion, all of which you ignored.
Again, you are not worthy of my time.
Probably because for non sociopaths... it's true?
We call them 'instinctual' creatures, not emotional.
Except for the fact that reason is not automatic. We are capable of rational thought, it does not mean we always use it... just ask my 4 year old, who like most kids under about 7 is somewhere along the sociopath spectrum.
Wow, a factual statement from you at last... I bet this isn't going to last.
Note your use of the term 'not so much'... and not 'not at all shared with', so you acknowledge at least some successful people are driven by emotion, interesting.
Organizations you have demonstrated yourself as not understanding the actual functioning of.
On it's own, there is nothing wrong with having some sociopathic leanings, and your belittling the nature of human emotion does out you as being on the less intelligent side of the sociopathic spectrum.
Given the push back against your illogical and only self reinforcing views, I really think you should reconsider that drop... like many other things.
Given humans are fully in control of the corporations, not unlike humans are in control of governments and street gangs... and humans are emotional creatures... how exactly do you nullify interference from human emotion?
When a company donates money to disaster relief... is there no emotion involved at all? Not even when the CEO sees bodies floating in a river?
When politicians pass a law criminalizing an activity which many dislike is there no emotion involved at all? Not even when they tearfully pledge to outlaw ____?
When a street gang decides to go to war with another street gang... is there no emotional involved at all? Not even when the brother of the leader got shot?
Stupid Windows 8.1 browser not doing spell checking...
I suggest you learn to read where I said I was familiar with the accusations, shame you are more interested in stalking than facts.
Those speaking on behalf of the corporation?
It doesn't, it simply is a legal person.
Because you are confused.
False.
Corporations exist to reduce individual livability & allow a group of people to act as one under the law.
Why the heart? The ribs can do a pretty good job of deflecting a bullet away from it's original path, your brain however (despite being surrounded by bone) is a far better target... though does tend to prevent an open casket wake/funeral.
Where do you think they are while waiting to be executed?
More so, slow walking of executions ends up imposing a sentence "no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death"
So rare I hear someone supporting Citizens United around these parts, bravo!
More so, they are employing the same means available to other citizens... withholding consent.
Not everyone servers on a jury, let alone a capitol case where the jury has the option to impose the death penalty... but those that do are able to withhold their consent to impose that sentence, either by squirting the person or imposing life.
How many corporations (drug or otherwise) take the Hippocratic oath?
I doubt Charles Pfizer did as he wasn't an MD, only a chemist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The current chairman & CEO Ian Read is also not a doctor, having a degree in chemical engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Exactly!
Ignored by many is that this is by no means free. Even if the chip manufacturer has a sample driver & code for making the FM radio work, it's still up to the device manufacturer to validate that it works on their particular device... and even sometimes then get the carrier to sign off on the code.
Given how many Android devices are effectively abandoned by their manufacturer after they are shipped... you might be able to convince manufacturers to support it going forward, but likely not for existing devices... doubly so when noting guarantees that the existing chip works as is (could be too susceptible to interference or not have sufficient antenna).
Or... only in 14% of cases have the police screwed up in a major way either with regards to not collecting enough evidence, not doing so in the right way, or worse charing the wrong suspect.
The more time you spend around someone involved in criminal law (on either side) you realize that the police do not screw up as much as you would otherwise think.
Precisely, and this is an interesting quirk of our legal system where we are to be judged by ones 'peers'... but where both sides will attempt to reject as may potential jurors as they can who may tilt the scales too much in the opposite direction.
As a software developer well into his second decade, I know I would never be able to serve on a jury with regards to anything technical because, just as I would expect anyone with any semblance of affiliation with #BlackLivesMatter activist to be rejected from a jury regarding a cop killing someone.
OMG WTF LGBTQRST BBQ FTW!!!
It's called picking your battles, you should look into it!
I have cited specific sources several times, you have failed to do so, almost falling back to the tired line of the helpless of "educate yourself!". It is clear you are no longer worthy of my time.
Goodbye.
Dunno about your HS, mine was rather boring and a waste of my time (not unlike this conversation)... which is why I went and got a GED and later a masters.
That is different than what you've said. My focus has been on legitimate, approved access to *classified* information (clearly you've missed me highlighting the word, but then words don't have any specific meaning, do they?)
Which again, you are relying on the possibility she *may* have heard something... and that info *may* have traversed her personal email account... neither of which have you offered a smidgen of evidence of... so I'm going to conclude that you are a conspiracy theorist as much as anyone who screams "9/11 was an inside job" or chemtrails.
Unlike either of those, there is sizable evidence of wrongdoing by Sec Clinton in her use of email, and non regarding Gov Palin.
I'm familiar, perhaps you should look up my references to the FBI being able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
From Wikipedia:
I dunno about you.. but 400k is a bit hard for many, even if you found an older one with a few issues for half the price, that is still a large amount of money for something you probably aren't going to use every weekend... and that aide from the storage and maintenance costs.
I'm going to stick with driving the 1600-1800 miles from WA to MN and stop to see a few folks on the way with the wife & kid along for the ride.
Good idea, shame you keep insisting on it and deflecting.
You keep making such claims, yet fail to substantiate *ANY* of it. It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about... or are you one of those being paid by the Clinton campaign to 'correct' people on the internet?
Palin's emails were released, multiple outlets put them online, here is one that still is. It's reported that some 2200 pages were redacted in some way, to quote one article (notice how I keep quoting sources? You might try it.):
So many named carve outs... and yet 'classified information', 'military secrets', & 'common sense from dbIII' aren't listed as reasons, odd that?
Yes, it is possible that *IF* classified information existed in the emails and was found, it accidently got lumped in with one of those other categories... only that still assumes that she had access in the first place, something you continue to have failed to prove she did.
If you cannot, I will accept your admission of defeat on this matter and treat your statements of "ZOMG! Sarah Palin did the same thing!" as the same sort of conspiracy theory as "9/11 was an inside job" I hear from similarly grounded people.