Politics And Current Events

[dodint]

"No." -Rand Paul, probably.

[mikey]

This is an interesting thought exercise. Is it ethical to give Epstein a deal in exchange for him ratting out his associates? I would unequivocally say yes, since it’s more important to remove predators from the street than it is to seek justice at an individual level.

Thought exercise continued: How many people and/or how many people of prominence (does that matter?) would he need to give up in order to get away clean (i.e. no jail time, isn't set on fire in a public forum, etc.)? Or does that number not exist?

[shmenguin]

This is an interesting thought exercise. Is it ethical to give Epstein a deal in exchange for him ratting out his associates? I would unequivocally say yes, since it’s more important to remove predators from the street than it is to seek justice at an individual level.

Thought exercise continued: How many people and/or how many people of prominence (does that matter?) would he need to give up in order to get away clean (i.e. no jail time, isn't set on fire in a public forum, etc.)? Or does that number not exist?

really tempting to say, "doesn't exist", but that's not true. he hands over 1,000 folks with the same footprint as him, and it's absolutely worth it. But the number is >1 and <1000, and i don't know where it sits. Theoretically "2" could be the answer, but you need to factor in some societal/cultural implications.

prominence doesn't matter. i'd do cartwheels if clinton goes down in this (not rooting for him to be a pedo sex predator, but i enjoy a clinton take down), but there's no effective difference between him and joe shmo.

[count2infinity]

Agreed. I don't care so much about Epstein going free if it stops future girls from getting abused. Epstein is ruined after this anyways. There's a touch of justice there, but stopping future abuse is more important to me.

[tifosi77]

Part of what made Epstein's original 2007 plea and non-prosecution deal so unusual was that it existed at all, never mind its extraordinary lenience. I've heard many pundits/former prosecutors over the last week or so mention that it's fairly unusual to grant plea deals to someone charged with heinous sex crimes of this nature. We're talking very young girls, a large number of victims (meaning, corroborating witnesses), lengthy mandatory minimums in sentencing for each act.... these are generally not the types of cases in which prosecutors seek non-prosecution agreements. Epstein's wasn't then and is not now the type of case where prosecutors will offer up, say, 3-5 years and parole in exchange for giving up the goods on two or three others. Whether he pleads or is convicted at trial, he's going to prison for a very long time. And is a difference between 45 years in prison and 15-20 really that big of an incentive to a 66-year old man?

Granted, if we're talking about an organized syndicate-type operation with perhaps dozens or more other co-conspirators, that's maybe a different discussion.

And then again, on the third side, Epstein seemed to keep pretty detailed records of what he was doing and what he had in his safe. They may not need a non-prosecution agreement to get at any co-conspirators.

[Troy Loney]

We've finally found the true victim of this recent news cycle.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/meghan ... icize-her/

After news of Trump’s racist rant spoiled her evening out with relatives, McCain said she realized that his remarks had robbed her of something else.

“Everyone at this table, and I think, people that watch this show or have ever seen the dumpster fire of my interview with Seth Meyers know I have been one of Ilhan Omar’s most vocal critics regarding Israel, regarding some of her comments I and others interpreted as anti-Semitic,” McCain said. “But the problem right now is, you’re taking away my agency to criticize her policy.”

[shmenguin]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

[Troy Loney]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Weed is not going to legalized at the federal level.

[shafnutz05]

We've finally found the true victim of this recent news cycle.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/meghan ... icize-her/

After news of Trump’s racist rant spoiled her evening out with relatives, McCain said she realized that his remarks had robbed her of something else.

“Everyone at this table, and I think, people that watch this show or have ever seen the dumpster fire of my interview with Seth Meyers know I have been one of Ilhan Omar’s most vocal critics regarding Israel, regarding some of her comments I and others interpreted as anti-Semitic,” McCain said. “But the problem right now is, you’re taking away my agency to criticize her policy.”

This is a very clumsy way of saying it, but this is a large part of my frustration. Ilhan Omar is an abhorrent person with a largely disagreeable belief system, and Trump managed to turn her into a victim/hero with his stupid tweeting.

[shmenguin]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Weed is not going to legalized at the federal level.

It already is, effectively. The only things the Fed is blocking is banking and interstate commerce.

and i do expect it to become official, even with a republican president/senate.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Troy Loney]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Weed is not going to legalized at the federal level.

It already is, effectively. The only things the Fed is blocking is banking and interstate commerce.

and i do expect it to become official, even with a republican president/senate.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't. Drug laws are a major tool used by the state to disenfranchise minority voters. There's no way the GOP will allow the federal government to strip that ability away from the states that want to continue using that tool.

[grunthy]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

States apparently don’t have to follow immigrations laws. How is this any different than what goes on there?

FYI Oklahoma is approved for medical usage.

[shmenguin]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Weed is not going to legalized at the federal level.

It already is, effectively. The only things the Fed is blocking is banking and interstate commerce.

and i do expect it to become official, even with a republican president/senate.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't. Drug laws are a major tool used by the state to disenfranchise minority voters. There's no way the GOP will allow the federal government to strip that ability away from the states that want to continue using that tool.

We’re a long way away from decriminalizing “hard” drugs, even though it should have been done yesterday. This is the remaining flex available to the Fed’s. But the bubble has burst on cannabis.

And Oklahoma recently sued Colorado for legalizing, so sure, things are peachy. Medical laws don’t stop the bleeding. Poor communities are still victims of police abuse, even with medical programs.

[Morkle]

Court documents related to hush money payments arranged by President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were filed unsealed Thursday.
The documents include a description of an Oct. 8, 2016, phone call Cohen received from Trump’s campaign communications chief Hope Hicks, during which 'Trump joined the call,' which federal investigators believed was related to an effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier.
Hicks was interviewed by the FBI about the phone calls with Cohen, the documents indicate.
The filing by federal prosecutors in New York came a day after the judge in Cohen’s criminal case ordered their release, saying that the end of a probe into those payments meant they should be made public.

Hope Hicks will not face charges of Perjury after she apparently perjured herself.

[Troy Loney]

We’re a long way away from decriminalizing “hard” drugs, even though it should have been done yesterday. This is the remaining flex available to the Fed’s. But the bubble has burst on cannabis.

I don' think that has anything to do with hard drugs. Marijuana use is so much more prolific than hard drugs and I imagine marijuana convictions dwarf the number of cocaine/heroine/opoids/etc

[shmenguin]

We’re a long way away from decriminalizing “hard” drugs, even though it should have been done yesterday. This is the remaining flex available to the Fed’s. But the bubble has burst on cannabis.

I don' think that has anything to do with hard drugs. Marijuana use is so much more prolific than hard drugs and I imagine marijuana convictions dwarf the number of cocaine/heroine/opoids/etc

i don't think the reason you cite is in the top 10 for why we're still fighting the war on a plant.

police unions
prison industry
alcohol lobbyists
pharm lobbyists
the elderly
political calculus/risk taking
the rehab industry

remove these, and there aren't any big obstacles, imo. and some of them are on there way.

[Troy Loney]

We’re a long way away from decriminalizing “hard” drugs, even though it should have been done yesterday. This is the remaining flex available to the Fed’s. But the bubble has burst on cannabis.

I don' think that has anything to do with hard drugs. Marijuana use is so much more prolific than hard drugs and I imagine marijuana convictions dwarf the number of cocaine/heroine/opoids/etc

i don't think the reason you cite is in the top 10 for why we're still fighting the war on a plant.

police unions
prison industry
alcohol lobbyists
pharm lobbyists
the elderly
political calculus/risk taking
the rehab industry

remove these, and there aren't any big obstacles, imo. and some of them are on there way.

Right, I think that all falls into the same spectrum. The incarceration industry is ingrained into our national psyche.

Have you read the New Jim Crow? It provides a very thorough accounting of how the war on drugs has played out.

[Morkle]

Court documents related to hush money payments arranged by President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were filed unsealed Thursday.
The documents include a description of an Oct. 8, 2016, phone call Cohen received from Trump’s campaign communications chief Hope Hicks, during which 'Trump joined the call,' which federal investigators believed was related to an effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier.
Hicks was interviewed by the FBI about the phone calls with Cohen, the documents indicate.
The filing by federal prosecutors in New York came a day after the judge in Cohen’s criminal case ordered their release, saying that the end of a probe into those payments meant they should be made public.

Hope Hicks will not face charges of Perjury after she apparently perjured herself.

They literally have her lying, in a written statement, and they're holding off on charges. Is this a Hack Barr strikes again?

[Troy Loney]

They literally have her lying, in a written statement, and they're holding off on charges. Is this a Hack Barr strikes again?

I think it would be hard to prove, I also think that if Barr was squashing a public corruption investigation, this would somehow get leaked to the press. Like how we learned almost immediately that Barr overrode the civil rights division of the DOJ in not charging the cop that strangled Eric Garner to death.

[mikey]

This is an interesting thought exercise. Is it ethical to give Epstein a deal in exchange for him ratting out his associates? I would unequivocally say yes, since it’s more important to remove predators from the street than it is to seek justice at an individual level.

Thought exercise continued: How many people and/or how many people of prominence (does that matter?) would he need to give up in order to get away clean (i.e. no jail time, isn't set on fire in a public forum, etc.)? Or does that number not exist?

really tempting to say, "doesn't exist", but that's not true. he hands over 1,000 folks with the same footprint as him, and it's absolutely worth it. But the number is >1 and <1000, and i don't know where it sits. Theoretically "2" could be the answer, but you need to factor in some societal/cultural implications.

prominence doesn't matter. i'd do cartwheels if clinton goes down in this (not rooting for him to be a pedo sex predator, but i enjoy a clinton take down), but there's no effective difference between him and joe shmo.

For your "2" answer, how does it differ from prominence? Or doesn't it and I'm not reading you correctly?

[CBear3]

I'm going to guess that if you expect her to cooperate at all in any other future matter, showing her leniency is a good bet.
If you want her to go all Shyster and not answer anything ever again, go ahead and prosecute.

[Morkle]

lol she hasn't cooperated this far, there's no need for her to cooperate in the future, though? What incentive is there?

[shmenguin]

This is an interesting thought exercise. Is it ethical to give Epstein a deal in exchange for him ratting out his associates? I would unequivocally say yes, since it’s more important to remove predators from the street than it is to seek justice at an individual level.

Thought exercise continued: How many people and/or how many people of prominence (does that matter?) would he need to give up in order to get away clean (i.e. no jail time, isn't set on fire in a public forum, etc.)? Or does that number not exist?

really tempting to say, "doesn't exist", but that's not true. he hands over 1,000 folks with the same footprint as him, and it's absolutely worth it. But the number is >1 and <1000, and i don't know where it sits. Theoretically "2" could be the answer, but you need to factor in some societal/cultural implications.

prominence doesn't matter. i'd do cartwheels if clinton goes down in this (not rooting for him to be a pedo sex predator, but i enjoy a clinton take down), but there's no effective difference between him and joe shmo.

For your "2" answer, how does it differ from prominence? Or doesn't it and I'm not reading you correctly?

maybe it's a little about prominence. there's sort of this "societal well being" thing that i think matters. where if an act so outrageous happens that it works its way into the zeitgeist, then our collective suffering as a society is greater than the suffering felt by individuals. i guess a sex trafficking ring may be immune from such consideration because of the level of horror for those directly impacted, but to let a broadly known monster off the hook...the revolt could theoretically lead to riots/death/destabilization. i mean...that's not likely, but you catch my drift.

so maybe sometimes prominence matters, but these are muddy waters

[Shyster]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Semi-automatic rifles are perfectly legal to own and possess in a majority of states. Yet if you live in California, New York, Hawaii, etc., you're possibly going to have your life ruined for owning/possessing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it. What obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from those tyrannical state and local governments?

[shmenguin]

thought exercise #2: cannabis is legal/decriminalized to some extent in most states. it's going to be off of the federal controlled substances act within 10 years, i think. and you aren't going to find many serious people who have devoted an ounce of thought to this who think personal use cannabis possession is a matter for the criminal justice system.

yet. fast forward to 2029 and if you live in kansas, oklahoma, texas, etc - you're still possibly going to have your life ruined for doing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it.

what obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from tyrannical state & local governments. this is not an ambiguous issue. weed possession should not be a matter for the courts. but there are cruel, draconian laws in place, and will continue to be in place at the state level. we ok with this?

Semi-automatic rifles are perfectly legal to own and possess in a majority of states. Yet if you live in California, New York, Hawaii, etc., you're possibly going to have your life ruined for owning/possessing the same thing as a guy 100 miles away, who actually gets to profit off of it. What obligation does the federal government have to intervene and protect US citizens from those tyrannical state and local governments?

k.