Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Projections matter (Score 1) 319

Nah, Lambert still destroys the poles. Dymaxion ftw.

Really though, who cares about dead-tree maps in this day and age anyway, when everyone's phone can show a 3D rotating, zoomable & searchable globe, with a live cloud layer; when you can don a headset and fly your immersed, godlike perspective anywhere on the planet.

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 1) 457

When did I ever argue that a judge should not hear any case, or this one?

What evidence is being withheld? Did you miss where the FBI released everything from their investigations?

I'll say it yet again: Presumption of innocence. It's important, regardless of your suspicions.

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 1) 457

Obviously the director *does* consider intent to be a factor, in this case.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because he's the director of the FBI, not the director of the Department of Justice. If the DoJ chose to take up the case, they could subpoena the results of the investigation and bring any case they wanted, regardless of the FBI's opinions. When asked why they haven't, you prefer to believe in massively widespread corruption, rather than the far simpler assumption that they merely know something you don't.

You claim without any basis that no court case will ever be held, you offer only speculation about conspiracies as to why that might be, then you use that to excuse your own premature assumption of guilt.

Presumption of innocence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a court case will be held in the future. It's needed because the evidence is not complete. If you could go around judging guilt based solely on a few selected facts and media reports, we wouldn't need court trials in the first place. I'm not sure why this means nothing to you.

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 1) 457

I'm certainly not throwing out what the director has said. He clearly found evidence against her - and also said it wasn't sufficient to make a robust case that a prosecutor would bother with. You're the one that listened to the first part but ignored the second.

My whole point is, there's certainly evidence, but no proof - and you can't (and shouldn't) arrive at a definite conclusion without a full trial, where all the evidence (for and against) is examined in detail. Until that happens, we have the presumption of innocence for a very good reason - and it's not me who's leaping to conclusions based on the trial by media.

The director's statements do not preclude a full trial, and the DoJ could still decide to make a case out of it - if they wanted to. They don't seem to, though. Perhaps that's because they're all corrupt, if you're inclined towards the conspiratorial view, or rather more likely it's simply because there just isn't enough evidence to actually convict her of anything - which is clearly the view of people who know a lot more about that evidence than you or I.

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 1) 457

I've judged her as having broken the law based on evidence that the FBI director provided to the public.

Actually, you've pre-judged her as guilty based on media reports, almost certainly with some bias added by the outlets of your choice, and which further selectively filtered the already-limited information the FBI director provided. Is that not third-hand, at least?

I'm not saying all prosecutors are too corrupt to take the case, but that the FBI believes that is the case (again, the FBI director's words, not mine).

I must have missed where the FBI director said anything about their supposed belief of all prosecutors being corrupt.

The information I do have clearly indicates the law was not followed.

Yet you agree your information is far from complete. A body and a suspect do not a murder case make - that's why we have courts, and not trials by media.

I would argue it is far more likely that she is guilty of much more

That prejudice right there, based on little more than pure speculation, would disqualify you from any jury.

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 1) 457

So you've pre-judged her as guilty, based on your incomplete third-hand hearsay, and you're further alleging that all prosecutors are too corrupt to take the case.

Have you considered perhaps that you simply don't have all the information, and what you don't know maybe indicates that she's not nearly as obviously guilty as you think, and possibly that's a much simpler explanation for why she's not being charged, rather than massive and widespread corruption throughout our entire legal system?

Comment Re: Not surprise in the least... (Score 2) 457

I am saying the public needs answers

They got an answer, from the feds. It's not definitive, but it's indicative at least, and far more informed than public speculation.

I am saying major crimes were committed

This is exactly my point. Major crimes are alleged. The difference is crucial. Someone could indeed be charged and get their day in court, but whether major crimes were actually committed is still not proved, let alone who by.

I am not disagreeing with the feds judgement

It does kinda sound like you are (which is fine). And I'm right with you on the whole "too powerful for the law to apply" thing - politicians more than anyone must be subject to the law.

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Working...