Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

[doctorquant]

Not that I would be astonished that a 72-year-old Reagan appointee from San Antonio would hold such an opinion.

Boy, Herself better hope this judge doesn't rule against her in any more substantive way. Per the Teddy-boy standard you posted on the Scalia thread, that'd mean Herself would be unfit for the Presidency. Whomever would you and Baron vote for then?

 

[da man]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...JW-v-State-Memorandum-and-discovery-01242.pdf

Here's the order.

 

[Dick Whitman]

No prob. Wasn't saying "case closed." Just adding what I had.

I appreciate it. But what I'm getting at - and this happens again and again - is that these cases have specific legal standards that the judges are utilizing, for a specific legal purpose. Journalists think this is all a buncha bullshirt, so they never include any of it, going straight for the tasty sound bites in the same way a teen-age boy goes straight for his girlfriend's goods, but it matters immensely. Remember when Shaun King stopped the presses because he thought he discovered that a judge determined that Jamie Naughtright was telling the truth?

Fact is, I'm not voting. I don't have a dog in this fight. I respect those of you who are voting. I certainly don't look down on you for it. It's just not the choice I've made. But you must recognize that it tends to color how you read such a story, whereas I don't have to tangle with that kind of bias.

 

[da man]

You say aversion. He says avoision. Toma-yto, toma-hto.

Outing alert! Rick Stain is:

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Boy, Herself better hope this judge doesn't rule against her in any more substantive way. Per the Teddy-boy standard you posted on the Scalia thread, that'd mean Herself would be unfit for the Presidency. Whomever would you and Baron vote for then?

Sanders, Biden, O'Malley ...

BTW, that decision is in a civil case, not a criminal one. Sixth paragraph.

 

[da man]

I appreciate it. But what I'm getting at - and this happens again and again - is that these cases have specific legal standards that the judges are utilizing, for a specific legal purpose. Journalists think this is all a buncha bullshirt, but it matters immensely. Remember when Shaun King stopped the presses because he thought he discovered that a judge determined that Jamie Naughtright was telling the truth?

Fact is, I'm not voting. I don't have a dog in this fight. I respect those of you who are voting. I certainly don't look down on you for it. It's just not the choice I've made. But you must recognize that it tends to color how you read such a story, whereas I don't have to tangle with that kind of bias.

See above for a link to the order.

 

[doctorquant]

Journalists think this is all a buncha bullshirt ...but it matters immensely.

What? What? How you arrive at a decision is important? The means by which you logically support your conclusion ... we should actually take those into account? Unpossible!

 

[Dick Whitman]

This seems key to me:

Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the
Government and the former government officials. Whether the State Department's actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be "acting in good faith" remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.

So the "evidence" is what we all already are aware of and have discussed ad nauseum: The shifting and inconsistent explanations. Notice that the Court didn't determine that there was "bad faith" or "wrong-doing," just that he thinks that the "shifting admissions" are evidence enough to warrant discovery.

 

[doctorquant]

Sanders, Biden, O'Malley ...

BTW, that decision is in a civil case, not a criminal one. Sixth paragraph.

So was the case cran ... I mean Teddy-Boy ... referred to.

 

[cranberry]

Boy, Herself better hope this judge doesn't rule against her in any more substantive way. Per the Teddy-boy standard you posted on the Scalia thread, that'd mean Herself would be unfit for the Presidency. Whomever would you and Baron vote for then?

First, you clearly didn't see (or want to see) that my post was simply refuting YF's assertion that Ted Kennedy didn't mention the Saturday Night Massacre in his floor speech. Second, that you would even begin to equate any of this with Bork's actions in firing Cox demonstrates a delusional lack of perspective.

So bottom line, what you say here is pretty forking stupid.

 

[doctorquant]

First, you clearly didn't see (or want to see) that my post was simply refuting YF's assertion that Ted Kennedy didn't mention the Saturday Night Massacre in his floor speech. Second, that you would even begin to equate any of this with Bork's actions in firing Cox demonstrates a delusional lack of perspective.

So bottom line, what you say here is pretty forking stupid.

LOL ... hoisted by his own petard ...

 

[da man]

This seems key to me:

Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the
Government and the former government officials. Whether the State Department's actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be "acting in good faith" remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.

So the "evidence" is what we all already are aware of and have discussed ad nauseum: The shifting and inconsistent explanations. Notice that the Court didn't determine that there was "bad faith" or "wrong-doing," just that he thinks that the "shifting admissions" are evidence enough to warrant discovery.

No one said the court definitively determined there was bad faith or wrongdoing. The court did, however, say "there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith."