Actually, a defense of 'I didn't know' is, in that case, her best bet. But even I could run against her waving such a statement around and asking how she could be considered competent to be President not knowing that such information ought to be classified, and even asking a staffer about it.
But that is a nuanced claim that most voters would never even slow down to glance at.
Sadly, that is not a defense against several of the statutes she could be indicted under. It may change the sentence, but the conviction would be the very same.
Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?
Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.
But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.
- Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?
- If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?
- If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?
I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.
So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:
It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.
And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.
If this is true, three salient points come to mind:
0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.
1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.
2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.
I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.
I wander by several open or semi-open WiFi hotspots daily, and having my phone latch onto one, wait for me to sign on, and fail to get email, texts (yes, texts), etc until it figures out I am gone is not just annoying, it is a failure mode. My carrier hates me for this, and tries to force WiFi on by various means. I average 10-12GB mobile data, and use my mobile hot spot for my tablet when I'm in marginal WiFi signal areas, which is most of the time.
WiFi hotspots can be a serious pain - for me, not worth the trouble.
In this current context a 'negative interest rate' is one of the following:
- Fee discouraging deposits, intended to force capital into the economy instead of being 'horded' or held on deposit for minimal or predictable risk.
- 'Bail In' bank recovery, an example being Cyprus, which essentially confiscated deposits to rebalance their economy.
Neither may be fair, for sure. 'Negative Interest' to force capital into unfavorable markets is probably doomed to failure, but when the governments have only hammers, they will look for nails. 'Bail In' programs are plainly confiscatory. You tell me if those are legal, moral, or proper. I won't present my biases now.
EFTs in all their forms (Debit, credit, ACH, various electronic pays) cost money:
0. Cost of terminal or software. 1. Processing fees to your acquirer(s). 2. For software, data management and security. 3. Cost of chargebacks (refunds, voluntary or involuntary). 4. Cost of funds during payment float (usually none, but for small merchants this can be up to 7 days - Stripe being one such processor).
'Credit' or EFTs are not without cost. Some banks do charge cash deposit fees, I'm sure, but not 2.5-2.5%, and chargebacks for cash transactions do not happen. the cash/credit price differential at gas stations etc reflects this, and the increased risk of EFTs.
Gas stations are an interesting case. Gas & oil as an industry poses unique challenges to EFTs, mostly due to the potential for repetitive charge amounts and the unsupervised terminals (gas pumps) that pose security risks. But convenience stores are commonly used to test stolen cards, buying a soda and gum for a small amount, then off to the casino to rack chips and change those into cash. Don't get caught, the casinos will not let you back in. Ever. Anywhere.
While EFTs are attractive for a variety of reasons, theft is not one, nor is convenience. Check your receipt at big stores when you spend a lot, an unscrupulous cashier can add on a cash back amount and you may miss it. They will apologize, 'must have hit a button'... yeah, take a moment and tell the manager, there is no 'button'. Obvious fraud such as cloning will diminish as EMV (Chip) cards start to take over. CHIP+Signature as we have in the US is a half measure - CHIP+PIN is the next necessary step, and then they've got ya. If you claim unauthorized use, you must have given your PIN to someone, or disclosed it, and that's your problem. Card-not-present transactions are still at risk. But we aren't mailing money orders to Amazon any time soon, so we are stuck.
Cash is still very desirable sometimes. Tough. Tell the Fed NO.
We use $100 bills to buy cars off Craigslist. Yup, either at the title office, or a busy-ish Starbucks, or even at a police station.
Or when we buy a gun at a show, from a licensed dealer, after having passed an NICS background check, just like we're supposed to, obedient sheep we are.
Or we spotted a superb rolling tool chest at a yard sale, and a few $100s are easier than a fistful of $20s.
And we do so because some transactions do take place in cash because that's the preferred means of payment.
The use cases for the $100 bill are real and needful. Just stop it, you are not going to force the crooks to use their debit cards, k? Thanks, and go back to fixing the economy, like always, you're welcome.
I'm not paid to post by anybody. Stick your Leftist 'everybody who disagrees with me is a fascist' crap. Trotting out the common straw men such as the Koch brothers is telling - Sonos and Buffet make contributions that dwarf those..
Have you read anything but your treasured theses on the bad bad right for the past two decades?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a defense of 'I didn't know' is, in that case, her best bet. But even I could run against her waving such a statement around and asking how she could be considered competent to be President not knowing that such information ought to be classified, and even asking a staffer about it.
But that is a nuanced claim that most voters would never even slow down to glance at.
Sadly, that is not a defense against several of the statutes she could be indicted under. It may change the sentence, but the conviction would be the very same.
"but it wasn't intentional and it really wasn't her wrongdoing. "
Wasn't intentional? Surely you jest.
Think this through with me, please, think.
Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?
Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.
But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.
- Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?
- If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?
- If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?
I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.
So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:
It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.
And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.
If this is true, three salient points come to mind:
0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.
1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.
2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.
I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.
Conflicted much?
"Unless you're a Christian and follow the Bible, then you're responsible for Eve coming from Adam's rib. "
Um, God did that... Christians just accept it.
It's not that hard to get Christian theology right. . Lots of sources.
Your description narrows the possibilities down to, like, 52 states...
Since oceans are warming, some of that heat assumes to be in the atmosphere is there instead.
And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.
That's the correlation I dispute, but clearly you accept it.
Not that a warming climate would both render some land too hot for agriculture, and some newly arable...
Net loss? Any credible studies that claim that? This can be done by postulating warming and guessing at the impact.
"rate the sea level is increasing indicates that this phenomenon is influenced by man"
Lost me there. What's the correlation?
And you are incorrect.
Cashiers can cram cash back onto a credit card also.
Watts is 'only' a meteorologist. He is not without knowledge and training, but dismiss him if you wish. I focus on his data.
Just how I do it.
I wander by several open or semi-open WiFi hotspots daily, and having my phone latch onto one, wait for me to sign on, and fail to get email, texts (yes, texts), etc until it figures out I am gone is not just annoying, it is a failure mode. My carrier hates me for this, and tries to force WiFi on by various means. I average 10-12GB mobile data, and use my mobile hot spot for my tablet when I'm in marginal WiFi signal areas, which is most of the time.
WiFi hotspots can be a serious pain - for me, not worth the trouble.
In this current context a 'negative interest rate' is one of the following:
- Fee discouraging deposits, intended to force capital into the economy instead of being 'horded' or held on deposit for minimal or predictable risk.
- 'Bail In' bank recovery, an example being Cyprus, which essentially confiscated deposits to rebalance their economy.
Neither may be fair, for sure. 'Negative Interest' to force capital into unfavorable markets is probably doomed to failure, but when the governments have only hammers, they will look for nails. 'Bail In' programs are plainly confiscatory. You tell me if those are legal, moral, or proper. I won't present my biases now.
History make Bernie Sanders look bad. Cue the flames now.
The compassion is strong with this one. Logic is a cruel master.
EFTs in all their forms (Debit, credit, ACH, various electronic pays) cost money:
0. Cost of terminal or software.
1. Processing fees to your acquirer(s).
2. For software, data management and security.
3. Cost of chargebacks (refunds, voluntary or involuntary).
4. Cost of funds during payment float (usually none, but for small merchants this can be up to 7 days - Stripe being one such processor).
'Credit' or EFTs are not without cost. Some banks do charge cash deposit fees, I'm sure, but not 2.5-2.5%, and chargebacks for cash transactions do not happen. the cash/credit price differential at gas stations etc reflects this, and the increased risk of EFTs.
Gas stations are an interesting case. Gas & oil as an industry poses unique challenges to EFTs, mostly due to the potential for repetitive charge amounts and the unsupervised terminals (gas pumps) that pose security risks. But convenience stores are commonly used to test stolen cards, buying a soda and gum for a small amount, then off to the casino to rack chips and change those into cash. Don't get caught, the casinos will not let you back in. Ever. Anywhere.
While EFTs are attractive for a variety of reasons, theft is not one, nor is convenience. Check your receipt at big stores when you spend a lot, an unscrupulous cashier can add on a cash back amount and you may miss it. They will apologize, 'must have hit a button'... yeah, take a moment and tell the manager, there is no 'button'. Obvious fraud such as cloning will diminish as EMV (Chip) cards start to take over. CHIP+Signature as we have in the US is a half measure - CHIP+PIN is the next necessary step, and then they've got ya. If you claim unauthorized use, you must have given your PIN to someone, or disclosed it, and that's your problem. Card-not-present transactions are still at risk. But we aren't mailing money orders to Amazon any time soon, so we are stuck.
Cash is still very desirable sometimes. Tough. Tell the Fed NO.
We use $100 bills to buy cars off Craigslist. Yup, either at the title office, or a busy-ish Starbucks, or even at a police station.
Or when we buy a gun at a show, from a licensed dealer, after having passed an NICS background check, just like we're supposed to, obedient sheep we are.
Or we spotted a superb rolling tool chest at a yard sale, and a few $100s are easier than a fistful of $20s.
And we do so because some transactions do take place in cash because that's the preferred means of payment.
The use cases for the $100 bill are real and needful. Just stop it, you are not going to force the crooks to use their debit cards, k? Thanks, and go back to fixing the economy, like always, you're welcome.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Next.
I'm not paid to post by anybody. Stick your Leftist 'everybody who disagrees with me is a fascist' crap. Trotting out the common straw men such as the Koch brothers is telling - Sonos and Buffet make contributions that dwarf those..
Have you read anything but your treasured theses on the bad bad right for the past two decades?
Oh, yes, I read on the Left.
Use any examples here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I know you hate that site, so dispute it.
My kingdom, such as it is, for a mod point.
Surprisingly, ExxonMobile has other reasons to employ scientists than to refute man-made climate change.
You do not know this?