And what would replacing Lynch do? Nothing. The FBI didn't recommend charges.
Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her. Not because they didn't gather ample evidence of her blatant mis-handling of classified material, destruction of records, and lying. The decision wasn't based on the evidence, it was based on whether or not Loretta Lynch would directly or through her underlings, pursue a prosecution. Obama signaled months ago, before the FBI had even been allowed to see much of the evidence, that there was no chance of an indictment on his watch.
But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her. It was a 100% political decision that came mere days after Clinton sent her husband to have a one-on-one private meeting with Lynch. Replacing Comey with someone else wouldn't have mattered, because the FBI director doesn't get to decide whether or not the idea of a prosecution will be preemptively shut down by the administration, which it was in this case.
No. Business unit managers and officers. Even senior people helping to run his campaign. One of his most frequent PR surrogates is a Latina, not to take the fun out of your jab. Likewise with people from every other color, creed, and walk of life throughout his operations. Probably he doesn't promote too many crazy jihadi wackadoos though. Which is just plain good sense.
She has proven to be a capable Senator for New York.
Really? Are you referring to the totally failed, money-wasting exercise on upstate NY revitalization? Or were you referring to her support and vote for the war in Iraq? Or were you referring to all of those other great pieces of legislation she sponsored and saw through... oh, right, there really weren't any.
Her time as Secretary of State is certainly something she should be proud of.
Why? Because her phony "reset" stunt with Russia worked out so well? Check with the people in Crimea and throughout Ukraine on that one perhaps. Or were you thinking of her proud handling of the affairs in Libya, where her championing of the use of force to topple the leader there, with essentially no further involvement, has resulted in chaos, death, and the insurgence of whole new ISIS and AQ-style franchises murdering people by the thousands? Yes! Really something to be proud of. Or were you thinking perhaps of her wise ability to so gracefully handle the situation in Syria, which has turned into a calamity for millions of dead and feeling refugees that are now swamping Europe and carrying radical jihadism with them? Yes, that was really a moment of pride, promising but never delivering on the support that the moderate anti-Assad segments of Syrian society needed, allowing the radicals to move in wholesale, followed by Russia and Iran. A real moment of pride, there.
I suppose what you really mean is that she can be proud that she leveraged her position as Secretary of State to get foreign governments to hand millions of dollars to her family business while she was in office, in exchange for better access to her while they had issues in front of the State Department. Yes, by her standards, she should definitely be proud of how wealthy she made her family while she held that public office. Way to go, Hillary!
You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?
Comey's decision is rooted in practicality.
Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.
it is a weak case
Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time? But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.
Even in your response you can't separate Benghazi with other things she may have done.
Because it was in the context of trying to get to the bottom of her (and her boss's) lying about the Benghazi mess for political reasons right before an election that it became clear she had been running her official email on (and ONLY on) a home computer. And in examining that situation, it became clear that she had - on becoming aware that she was under subpoena - that she destroyed tens of thousands of federal documents, and repeatedly lied about what she did, when she did it, and why she did it. Right: you can't separate the two topics because SHE is the one responsible for them being part of an uninterrupted spectrum of incompetence and deceit that doesn't begin and end with just one topic.
Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything.
So the problem here is that you don't actually understand the different branches of government and how they work. That explains a lot about your rambling, here. "The GOP" is a political party. It has no authority. Are you talking about congress? They could charge her with contempt for lying as she did in under oath in front of them, and that's still a possibility. But otherwise, the only entity capable of charging her with anything is the Obama administration. You get that, right? No, apparently you don't.
Yes she said it but at the time...
Blah blah. She said that she did NOT say it, and that's simply a lie. Regardless, you're carefully avoiding the long career of deliberate lies about all sorts of things - from the ridiculously meaningless (why lie about why her parents called her Hillary?) to the clearly self-aggrandizing (landing under sniper fire!) to the long, long parade of lies designed to deflect from public awareness of her corruption. Everything from her days in Arkansas to countless bits of business under her control in the White House, to her frequent throwing-under-the-bus of staff with a lie about why, to her non-stop lying - right to this day - about her "mistake" in setting up an off-the-books mail server to hide her public records from scrutiny... acts serious enough that the DoJ has been doling out immunity deals like candy. Focusing on how half-truthy her spin on the her "it's the Gold Standard" assertion was then or is now is just you trying to avoid the rest of her career's disingenuous handling of the truth.
Unstable? How do you know she's unstable, again. Are you already attacking her character first? Freudian slip?
OK, I guess you consider her to be a more authoritative voice on her character than the judge who said she threatened his life. Do you have a reason to consider that judge to be a liar? Please explain.
He certainly can say racist things (and he does)
Please explain some of the racist things he DOES say. Or are you one of these people who can't understand the difference between race and culture? While you're at it, of course, please chime in on Hillary Clinton's choice to do things like yukking her way through a skit at a fundraiser where the joke is that being late for events is an example of operating on "Colored People Time."
Now you are deflecting about Trump's clear misogynistic tendencies by bringing up Bill Clinton.
No, you just can't read. The issue isn't Bill Clinton, the issue is Hillary Clinton and her personal staff spending time and your tax dollars to deliberately engage in a campaign of character assassination against the women who - by either willingly or unwillingly being the Bill Clinton sexcapade and abuse show - were going to poison the well for Hillary's personal eventual quest for political power. She would never have progressed past being a lawyer getting rapists easy plea deals if she hadn't ridden her husband's coat-tails all the way to national office. S
Why should Benghazi come up? That affair, in and of itself, isn't an example of her law breaking. It was an example (in the event of the death of the ambassador and three others) an example of her incompetence and dismissive attitude towards underlings. And it was an example (in the event of her and her boss deliberately, knowingly lying repeatedly to the public generally and to the faces of the dead people's families literally while standing next to their coffins) of her general aversion to the truth and her willingness to look you, me, and and everyone else in the eye and lie. About little things (where her name came from, whether she "landed under sniper fire," about being "dead broke" and having trouble buying her multiple houses, etc) and big things (like her motivation for and practice of running her State Department email off a home computer, the casual disregard for above-classified document security, and the destruction of federal records while under subpoena).
That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.
When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.
It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company)... this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior. But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.
Regardless, neither are well suited to the office. But one or the other of them will be seating Supreme Court justices. That's all that matters at this point. His choices - which will come from a list we've already seen - will skew towards constructionist jurists inclined to preserve the rights the Constitution protects. Her choices will without question be liberals who, like her, promise to act early and often to erode those rights. I'd rather have his likely flavor of jurists in place when we have future cases involving the Commerce Clause, campaign finance, balance of power issues, and friction around the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.
And I'm sure they won't drop the already ridiculous price of a Prime membership either.
If you do regular business with them and think that price is "ridiculous," then you're a fool and shouldn't use math for any other important tasks in life.
How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
Already done. Too well. That's why we have population growth when we don't need it anymore. The more advanced sectors of society are actually shrinking, population-wise and resource-use-wise. It's the slow to catch up third world that hasn't refined its culture to the point where having too many babies eases off on its own.
Yup. He was standing in line to buy some screw-top wine with his pocket change, bought a scratch-off ticket and by pure luck out popped PayPal and Tesla. That's exactly how it went.
We're talking about the fact that AIRCRAFT fly over people's houses all day, every day. Focusing on only one type of aircraft isn't meaningful (from an FAA perspective).
Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.
Doesn't matter. The FAA doesn't take shotgun range, or high-powered-rifle-range into account when they say it's illegal to discharge a firearm at an aircraft.
"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.
Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.
If I can fly my drone up to 400 feet above my house, then I am making use of that airspace, which makes that MY airspace according to your, and the court's reasoning.
No, if you fly 400 feet above your house, you're in THE airspace. Not YOUR airspace.
The FAA has statutory authority over every bit of US (and territorial) air space from 1mm above the ground. They are exactly who defines who can fly where. That has nothing to do with things like privacy laws - that's about what you do with, for example, images taken while flying. Right now, that's a patchwork of local and state laws. But who (and what) can fly where and how high: that's FAA turf, entirely.
The over.55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.
Enjoy paying your legal fees as you try to defend against the prosecution you'l receive for throwing birdshot at a person outside your property. Long lens or not.
The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.
The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."
Funny how you're asserting such specific details (anonymously) without something as simple as a link to this incredibly well established law. It doesn't exist. You're making it up. You're lying. And you know it, which is why you cannot cite even a general bit of guidance from the FAA (let alone a specific federal rule or piece of legislation) that to back up your hand-wavy assertion. Here's what we know: the FAA requires (without specific waiver) that operators stay UNDER 400'. The agency goes to great length to spell out dozens of specific rules that apply to newly certificed (part 107) commercial operators, and of course the rules for recreational operators are quite a bit looser. At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.
That doesn't mean operators should be jerks. But we know you're being one.
I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.
You don't "think" that, you're making that up because you wish it were true. But it's not. Read the details. The operator also has detailed flight logs to back up his description of events.
This has already been well established. The air above your house is NOT yours, beyond the height you can use. In one case, a judge settled on 83 feet. Somebody flying his little quadcopter by at 200 feet isn't in "your" airspace at all, hovering or not.
Slashdot Mirror
And what would replacing Lynch do? Nothing. The FBI didn't recommend charges.
Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her. Not because they didn't gather ample evidence of her blatant mis-handling of classified material, destruction of records, and lying. The decision wasn't based on the evidence, it was based on whether or not Loretta Lynch would directly or through her underlings, pursue a prosecution. Obama signaled months ago, before the FBI had even been allowed to see much of the evidence, that there was no chance of an indictment on his watch.
But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her. It was a 100% political decision that came mere days after Clinton sent her husband to have a one-on-one private meeting with Lynch. Replacing Comey with someone else wouldn't have mattered, because the FBI director doesn't get to decide whether or not the idea of a prosecution will be preemptively shut down by the administration, which it was in this case.
Really? Hotel room cleaners?
No. Business unit managers and officers. Even senior people helping to run his campaign. One of his most frequent PR surrogates is a Latina, not to take the fun out of your jab. Likewise with people from every other color, creed, and walk of life throughout his operations. Probably he doesn't promote too many crazy jihadi wackadoos though. Which is just plain good sense.
She has proven to be a capable Senator for New York.
Really? Are you referring to the totally failed, money-wasting exercise on upstate NY revitalization? Or were you referring to her support and vote for the war in Iraq? Or were you referring to all of those other great pieces of legislation she sponsored and saw through ... oh, right, there really weren't any.
Her time as Secretary of State is certainly something she should be proud of.
Why? Because her phony "reset" stunt with Russia worked out so well? Check with the people in Crimea and throughout Ukraine on that one perhaps. Or were you thinking of her proud handling of the affairs in Libya, where her championing of the use of force to topple the leader there, with essentially no further involvement, has resulted in chaos, death, and the insurgence of whole new ISIS and AQ-style franchises murdering people by the thousands? Yes! Really something to be proud of. Or were you thinking perhaps of her wise ability to so gracefully handle the situation in Syria, which has turned into a calamity for millions of dead and feeling refugees that are now swamping Europe and carrying radical jihadism with them? Yes, that was really a moment of pride, promising but never delivering on the support that the moderate anti-Assad segments of Syrian society needed, allowing the radicals to move in wholesale, followed by Russia and Iran. A real moment of pride, there.
I suppose what you really mean is that she can be proud that she leveraged her position as Secretary of State to get foreign governments to hand millions of dollars to her family business while she was in office, in exchange for better access to her while they had issues in front of the State Department. Yes, by her standards, she should definitely be proud of how wealthy she made her family while she held that public office. Way to go, Hillary!
he founded ISIS
You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?
Comey's decision is rooted in practicality.
Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.
it is a weak case
Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time? But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.
Even in your response you can't separate Benghazi with other things she may have done.
Because it was in the context of trying to get to the bottom of her (and her boss's) lying about the Benghazi mess for political reasons right before an election that it became clear she had been running her official email on (and ONLY on) a home computer. And in examining that situation, it became clear that she had - on becoming aware that she was under subpoena - that she destroyed tens of thousands of federal documents, and repeatedly lied about what she did, when she did it, and why she did it. Right: you can't separate the two topics because SHE is the one responsible for them being part of an uninterrupted spectrum of incompetence and deceit that doesn't begin and end with just one topic.
Yes she's so incompetent that the GOP can't charge with anything.
So the problem here is that you don't actually understand the different branches of government and how they work. That explains a lot about your rambling, here. "The GOP" is a political party. It has no authority. Are you talking about congress? They could charge her with contempt for lying as she did in under oath in front of them, and that's still a possibility. But otherwise, the only entity capable of charging her with anything is the Obama administration. You get that, right? No, apparently you don't.
Yes she said it but at the time...
Blah blah. She said that she did NOT say it, and that's simply a lie. Regardless, you're carefully avoiding the long career of deliberate lies about all sorts of things - from the ridiculously meaningless (why lie about why her parents called her Hillary?) to the clearly self-aggrandizing (landing under sniper fire!) to the long, long parade of lies designed to deflect from public awareness of her corruption. Everything from her days in Arkansas to countless bits of business under her control in the White House, to her frequent throwing-under-the-bus of staff with a lie about why, to her non-stop lying - right to this day - about her "mistake" in setting up an off-the-books mail server to hide her public records from scrutiny ... acts serious enough that the DoJ has been doling out immunity deals like candy. Focusing on how half-truthy her spin on the her "it's the Gold Standard" assertion was then or is now is just you trying to avoid the rest of her career's disingenuous handling of the truth.
Unstable? How do you know she's unstable, again. Are you already attacking her character first? Freudian slip?
OK, I guess you consider her to be a more authoritative voice on her character than the judge who said she threatened his life. Do you have a reason to consider that judge to be a liar? Please explain.
He certainly can say racist things (and he does)
Please explain some of the racist things he DOES say. Or are you one of these people who can't understand the difference between race and culture? While you're at it, of course, please chime in on Hillary Clinton's choice to do things like yukking her way through a skit at a fundraiser where the joke is that being late for events is an example of operating on "Colored People Time."
Now you are deflecting about Trump's clear misogynistic tendencies by bringing up Bill Clinton.
No, you just can't read. The issue isn't Bill Clinton, the issue is Hillary Clinton and her personal staff spending time and your tax dollars to deliberately engage in a campaign of character assassination against the women who - by either willingly or unwillingly being the Bill Clinton sexcapade and abuse show - were going to poison the well for Hillary's personal eventual quest for political power. She would never have progressed past being a lawyer getting rapists easy plea deals if she hadn't ridden her husband's coat-tails all the way to national office. S
I'm surprised you didn't also mention Benghazi.
Why should Benghazi come up? That affair, in and of itself, isn't an example of her law breaking. It was an example (in the event of the death of the ambassador and three others) an example of her incompetence and dismissive attitude towards underlings. And it was an example (in the event of her and her boss deliberately, knowingly lying repeatedly to the public generally and to the faces of the dead people's families literally while standing next to their coffins) of her general aversion to the truth and her willingness to look you, me, and and everyone else in the eye and lie. About little things (where her name came from, whether she "landed under sniper fire," about being "dead broke" and having trouble buying her multiple houses, etc) and big things (like her motivation for and practice of running her State Department email off a home computer, the casual disregard for above-classified document security, and the destruction of federal records while under subpoena).
..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.
... this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior. But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.
That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.
When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard
It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company)
Regardless, neither are well suited to the office. But one or the other of them will be seating Supreme Court justices. That's all that matters at this point. His choices - which will come from a list we've already seen - will skew towards constructionist jurists inclined to preserve the rights the Constitution protects. Her choices will without question be liberals who, like her, promise to act early and often to erode those rights. I'd rather have his likely flavor of jurists in place when we have future cases involving the Commerce Clause, campaign finance, balance of power issues, and friction around the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.
Hard to understand how we have not applied historical norms of Monopoly to Amazon
Because there are thousands of mail-order/online-shopping businesses in the country? Amazon isn't anything like a monopoly.
And I'm sure they won't drop the already ridiculous price of a Prime membership either.
If you do regular business with them and think that price is "ridiculous," then you're a fool and shouldn't use math for any other important tasks in life.
How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
Already done. Too well. That's why we have population growth when we don't need it anymore. The more advanced sectors of society are actually shrinking, population-wise and resource-use-wise. It's the slow to catch up third world that hasn't refined its culture to the point where having too many babies eases off on its own.
He got lucky with PayPal and Tesla
Yup. He was standing in line to buy some screw-top wine with his pocket change, bought a scratch-off ticket and by pure luck out popped PayPal and Tesla. That's exactly how it went.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" isn't just a movie quote but is, in fact, what makes society work.
No, that's what makes slavery work.
We're talking about the fact that AIRCRAFT fly over people's houses all day, every day. Focusing on only one type of aircraft isn't meaningful (from an FAA perspective).
Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.
Doesn't matter. The FAA doesn't take shotgun range, or high-powered-rifle-range into account when they say it's illegal to discharge a firearm at an aircraft.
"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.
Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.
People fly recreational and commercial aircraft right over your house every day of the year.
If I can fly my drone up to 400 feet above my house, then I am making use of that airspace, which makes that MY airspace according to your, and the court's reasoning.
No, if you fly 400 feet above your house, you're in THE airspace. Not YOUR airspace.
The FAA has statutory authority over every bit of US (and territorial) air space from 1mm above the ground. They are exactly who defines who can fly where. That has nothing to do with things like privacy laws - that's about what you do with, for example, images taken while flying. Right now, that's a patchwork of local and state laws. But who (and what) can fly where and how high: that's FAA turf, entirely.
The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.
Enjoy paying your legal fees as you try to defend against the prosecution you'l receive for throwing birdshot at a person outside your property. Long lens or not.
I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States
This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.
The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.
The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."
Funny how you're asserting such specific details (anonymously) without something as simple as a link to this incredibly well established law. It doesn't exist. You're making it up. You're lying. And you know it, which is why you cannot cite even a general bit of guidance from the FAA (let alone a specific federal rule or piece of legislation) that to back up your hand-wavy assertion. Here's what we know: the FAA requires (without specific waiver) that operators stay UNDER 400'. The agency goes to great length to spell out dozens of specific rules that apply to newly certificed (part 107) commercial operators, and of course the rules for recreational operators are quite a bit looser. At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.
That doesn't mean operators should be jerks. But we know you're being one.
I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.
You don't "think" that, you're making that up because you wish it were true. But it's not. Read the details. The operator also has detailed flight logs to back up his description of events.
This has already been well established. The air above your house is NOT yours, beyond the height you can use. In one case, a judge settled on 83 feet. Somebody flying his little quadcopter by at 200 feet isn't in "your" airspace at all, hovering or not.