Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Reply To Thread

Fugget about it!Follow

#252 Feb 19 2014 at 10:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Amazing, isn't it? Facts.
Conjecture actually, but don't let it get you down.


No. I'm pretty sure the list of people included just in the email conversations who knew specifically that this study would involve reducing the three Fort Lee lanes down to one is a fact. Given that I was responding to claims that Wildstein personally directed the traffic crews to close the lanes and bypassed all the normal proceedures, I'd say that's also a "fact that disproves the claim".

Wouldn't you agree?

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 8:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#253 Feb 19 2014 at 10:35 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'd say that's also a "fact that disproves the claim".
I agree that's what you'd say. Bells and salivating and all that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#254 Feb 20 2014 at 2:46 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Can we please maybe acknowledge that there's a massive political reason to make this into a scandal

You're living in fantasy world. Not only have I acknowledged that, so has the media. Democrats want Christie down because he was the only threat to HRC. Republicans want him down because they never really liked his "moderate" views and with him gone, the 2016 Republican nomination is free game. This is not news. Everyone has accepted this. Why not you?

Gbaji wrote:
I mean, how many people have to be involved and informed in what was being done before we stop assuming this was all just cover for some unexplained political payback (seriously? How does that benefit them even if it's true?), and maybe consider that it really was a legitimate (if foolish) traffic study?

You're the only person pretending that this is still about "political payback". As I said in the post that you conveniently ignored, this is about when Christie knew what and why he didn't take action before the emails became public.

Gbaji wrote:
I visit a friend of mine for our table top game night once a week. On the drive back, there's a street where half of the lanes are coned off. One of the two turn lanes onto that street has cones blocking it, the lane itself has cones all over the place, and the onramp onto the freeway involves having to drive around them This has been in place for easily a year. I've yet to see any indication of any actual street work being done. They've just blocked off a lane. For a year.

And? My university has had so much construction that the ongoing joke is that the school should be named "Construction University". Does that lane provides access to the busiest bridge in the WORLD? No? Then maybe it's not that big of a deal? Kind of like my school was never that big of a deal?



Edited, Feb 20th 2014 10:47am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#255 Feb 20 2014 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I would like to thank gbaji and Jophiel for the continuing existence of The Asylum.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#256 Feb 20 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I would like to thank gbaji and Jophiel for the continuing existence of The Asylum.
Thank or blame - your choice.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#257 Feb 20 2014 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,515 posts
I don't deny there actually was an approved traffic study - we've known about that since the beginning. And all the documentation supports that. But skimming through Exhibit A, the illustrations are mock-ups of what could hypothetically happen were they to close down lanes. It's modeling. It's done that way so they don't have to, you know, actually close the lanes and ***** up traffic needlessly. All the data for this was supposed to come from information captured via cameras (which were in place) and via the normal methods of counting cars, those little rope things strewn across the road.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#258 Feb 20 2014 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Catwho wrote:
I don't deny there actually was an approved traffic study - we've known about that since the beginning. And all the documentation supports that. But skimming through Exhibit A, the illustrations are mock-ups of what could hypothetically happen were they to close down lanes. It's modeling. It's done that way so they don't have to, you know, actually close the lanes and ***** up traffic needlessly. All the data for this was supposed to come from information captured via cameras (which were in place) and via the normal methods of counting cars, those little rope things strewn across the road.


Except that based on other email conversations, it's clear that the study wasn't just about counting the cars under normal conditions, but to see the impact on total volume of traffic onto the bridge based on the number of lanes open and compare that to the normal number. To do that, they had to actually shut down lanes. The illustrations were drawn up by the Chief Traffic Engineer to show the likely impact to traffic flow from the lane changes. And after he submitted those (and a set of options), a decision was made over the next week to go ahead with the option to close 2 of the 3 lanes.

The point is that a number of people who are presumably experts in traffic flow related stuff were directly involved in this, and at no point said "We can't do this because it'll be a disaster!!!". The only email I could find of someone even questioning the lane closures was one guy who asked if they couldn't leave two open instead of one, and he was from the toll collection portion of the Port Authority, not an expert on traffic. It's pretty clear from the emails that no one was surprised by the decision to close the lanes down at all, so it's not like Wildstein just out of the blue said "I want us to close down 2 lanes next Monday".

Since that's more or less what the entire scandal rests on, once we eliminate that, there's no scandal. I have no problem with them investigating the process that lead to the lane closures and the resulting traffic problems. Clearly, something went wrong there. But I do have a problem with the fact that it appears that they aren't bothering to do this at all, but are instead just assuming that the process was bypassed for nefarious reasons and then investigating the people they'd most like to blame for it. Not only is that purely about ugly politics, but it also wont result in possibly needed changes to the process so as to avoid a similar fiasco in the future. So double bad IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#259 Feb 20 2014 at 9:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Except that based on other email conversations, it's clear that the study wasn't just about counting the cars under normal conditions, but to see the impact on total volume of traffic onto the bridge based on the number of lanes open and compare that to the normal number. To do that, they had to actually shut down lanes.


What a job.. I wonder what would happen if we close 2 lanes of the busiest bridge in the world. OMG! Horrible Traffic.. Let me write that down.

Edited, Feb 21st 2014 5:55am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#260 Feb 20 2014 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
The only email I could find of someone even questioning the lane closures was one guy who asked if they couldn't leave two open instead of one, and he was from the toll collection portion of the Port Authority, not an expert on traffic.

Well, in gbajiland, experts [sorry - "*experts*"] are not to be trusted (or so you've told us over and over).

Ergo, this guy knew what he was talking about.

Edited, Feb 20th 2014 9:18pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#261 Feb 20 2014 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Alma, frighteningly enough, is closest to the correct answer: When the governor has already publicly fired members of his top staff over this, expressed regrets for it, says that he was deceived about it being a simple traffic study and claimed ultimate responsibility, it's a bit too late to start the "But I bet it really was only a legitimate traffic study!" sleuthing. It's moved fully into the "What did he know and when he know it" phase and there's no moving backwards.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#262 Feb 21 2014 at 5:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Furthermore, people are still withholding documents and pleading the 5th. If it were just a "dumb" study, an innocent person would show everything and demonstrate how s/he believes that what s/he was doing was the right thing by following protocol. Why hide emails of an approving authority telling you to do something that seems legit? So even if they are innocent, they are doing a poor job of proving it.


Edited, Feb 21st 2014 1:52pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#263 Mar 03 2014 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Yup. Gonna dig this up since I didn't get a chance to respond last week.

Jophiel wrote:
Alma, frighteningly enough, is closest to the correct answer: When the governor has already publicly fired members of his top staff over this, expressed regrets for it, says that he was deceived about it being a simple traffic study and claimed ultimate responsibility, it's a bit too late to start the "But I bet it really was only a legitimate traffic study!" sleuthing. It's moved fully into the "What did he know and when he know it" phase and there's no moving backwards.


Did he actually say that though? This is one of the several reasons why this whole thing smacks of "smoke but no fire". I haven't found any quote of Christie confirming that the bridge closings were done for nefarious payback reasons rather than as part of a legitimate traffic study. What he fired Kelly for was her lying to him about her knowing about the study. She more or less took something that was a nothing bit of speculation in the local papers and turned it into a nationwide scandal because she told him that she didn't know about the closings prior to them happening, he repeated that assertion when saying that none of his staff knew about the closing prior to them happening, and then it turned out she had known about them. Which made it look like he had lied about it, when in fact, she had lied to him.

This was what turned this into a nationwide thing. And that's all that has happened. No one has yet confirmed (or even provided anything other than wild speculation) that the closing itself wasn't legitimate. They just keep jumping past that part, assuming it was about payback, and then going after anyone close to the governor who knew about it.

But you still have to prove that this really was done for political payback. That's the piece that's missing. And I'm still waiting for *anyone* to show proof that this wasn't just a traffic study that perhaps was foolishly implemented.

Almalieque wrote:
Furthermore, people are still withholding documents and pleading the 5th. If it were just a "dumb" study, an innocent person would show everything and demonstrate how s/he believes that what s/he was doing was the right thing by following protocol. Why hide emails of an approving authority telling you to do something that seems legit? So even if they are innocent, they are doing a poor job of proving it.



In a sane world where investigators actually assess the facts of the case in front of them and then decide how to proceed, you'd have a point. The problem is that what Plamegate taught conservatives is that when a phony scandal like this occurs, the whole point of it is to get as many conservatives to make statements under oath as possible, under the assumption that someone will say something that doesn't perfectly jibe with some other document or statement, and that person can then be charged with perjury and/or obstruction. This is known as being "Scooter'd". He got nailed because he naively thought that the investigators were actually trying to figure out who leaked Plames identity, when they were really just fishing for staff members who would make a mistake in their testimony.

Pleading the 5th becomes the smart course of action because then the investigation has to actually look at the documents and facts instead of testimony from people who are not experts in avoiding getting trapped when being questioned under oath. And in this case, they're doing it because they know that the documents actually show that there's no evidence of any kind of nefarious conspiracy. Poor judgement with the closures? Sure. But that poor judgement has to be shared by a large number of folks, most of whom are not specifically politically aligned.


I've already shown how a whole list of people outside any reasonable circle of those "in on the plan" who knew the details of the closures, and were involved in the decision making and implementation of said closures. This more or less eliminates the possibility that the closures were about political payback. Thus there is no scandal. The whole thing at this point is about trying to find anything that doesn't match, and going after those people. Doesn't matter if what they find has nothing to do with the closures at all. It's a fishing expedition at this point. Nothing more.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2014 3:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#264 Mar 03 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
Did he actually say that though?
He said he was deceived, yes.
gbaji wrote:
I haven't found any quote of Christie confirming that the bridge closings were done for nefarious payback reasons rather than as part of a legitimate traffic study.
Next time after you type what you're looking for, actually hit the search button instead of just sitting there waiting.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#265 Mar 03 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In a sane world where investigators actually assess the facts of the case in front of them and then decide how to proceed, you'd have a point. The problem is that what Plamegate taught conservatives is that when a phony scandal like this occurs, the whole point of it is to get as many conservatives to make statements under oath as possible, under the assumption that someone will say something that doesn't perfectly jibe with some other document or statement, and that person can then be charged with perjury and/or obstruction. This is known as being "Scooter'd". He got nailed because he naively thought that the investigators were actually trying to figure out who leaked Plames identity, when they were really just fishing for staff members who would make a mistake in their testimony.

Pleading the 5th becomes the smart course of action because then the investigation has to actually look at the documents and facts instead of testimony from people who are not experts in avoiding getting trapped when being questioned under oath. And in this case, they're doing it because they know that the documents actually show that there's no evidence of any kind of nefarious conspiracy. Poor judgement with the closures? Sure. But that poor judgement has to be shared by a large number of folks, most of whom are not specifically politically aligned.


I've already shown how a whole list of people outside any reasonable circle of those "in on the plan" who knew the details of the closures, and were involved in the decision making and implementation of said closures. This more or less eliminates the possibility that the closures were about political payback. Thus there is no scandal. The whole thing at this point is about trying to find anything that doesn't match, and going after those people. Doesn't matter if what they find has nothing to do with the closures at all. It's a fishing expedition at this point. Nothing more.


So, you're saying that the IRS chick pleading the 5th on targeting Conservative groups isn't hiding anything? There's no logical reason to plead the 5th if you believe that you're innocent. Maybe at first to get some legal advice, but to constantly deny progress means that you're hiding something. It maybe unrelated to the accusation, but you're hiding something.

In the most simplistic scenario, that's like someone accusing you of putting something in your pocket and you refusing to empty your pocket.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#266 Mar 03 2014 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did he actually say that though?
He said he was deceived, yes.


About what? She told him that she didn't know about the closures prior to them happening. It was because she (and presumably everyone else on his immediate staff) said this that he told any media person who asked that no one on his staff even knew about the closures until after they happened, so it was laughable to even suspect some kind of foul play. Then it turned out she did know about them, which made him look like he had lied. Which, in case you were paying attention, is what caused this to be a national story in the first place.

That's how she deceived him. Why would you assume otherwise?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I haven't found any quote of Christie confirming that the bridge closings were done for nefarious payback reasons rather than as part of a legitimate traffic study.
Next time after you type what you're looking for, actually hit the search button instead of just sitting there waiting.


Why not hit the link button then? If this is so easy to find, it should be easy to link, right? But you can't, can you? Because... wait for it... it doesn't exist.

That's the first big clue that this is a phony scandal. You have to play word games to make it look like anything. I mean, I specifically addressed the fact that the lie she told him didn't mean that the closures were done for political reasons, but you ignored all of that and just said "he was deceived". Yeah. Great man. Totally bypassing the key question though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#267 Mar 03 2014 at 11:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, you're saying that the IRS chick pleading the 5th on targeting Conservative groups isn't hiding anything?


What I may think, and what is proven are two different things. Opinion versus fact, right? I'm not saying you can't believe what you want. I'm saying that if you want to convince others that what you think is true, you have to go a step further and find some proof.

The two cases are significantly different. We know for a fact that conservative groups were targeted in the IRS case. No one is refuting that. No one even questions whether it was done by a few local folks in IRS branch offices, or whether it was done via directives (or even just because of the structure of the approval process) from higher up. Before putting Lois Lerner on the stand, a good year of investigation was done, establishing that Lerner had set up the processes which more or less required that conservative groups applications end out being delayed, and also that she personally had a biased opinion that conservative political groups should somehow not receive tax exempt status (which is in violation of the actual policy and the law).

The reason Conservatives were outraged at Lerner invoking the 5th was because she wasn't really being called in about her own involvement. That had already largely been determined. She was being asked to answer whether she had been directed to do these things from higher up. So she wasn't protecting herself. She was potentially protecting others.

You can argue that maybe those invoking the 5th here are also doing so to protect someone higher up. But the key difference is the lack of solid paper trail even suggesting such a thing. That simply doesn't exist here. It's the point I've been making all along in this thread. I keep trying to find the piece that connects "traffic closures occur" to "governors office closed them to get revenge on democrats" and can't find any. What I see is an "investigation" that starts with the speculation that such a revenge plot occurred, and just leaps to the assumption that it must have happened, and proceeds to investigate all those that it thinks might have been involved.

We have due process for a reason. The cops can't just search your home because they don't like you and then hope they find something incriminating. That's called a fishing expedition. You have to first have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to proceed. And they don't here. They have proof that some freeway lanes were closed. What they don't have is any evidence at all that the decision to close these lanes was made with the intent of punishing the people of Fort Lee. Zero. Zip. Nada. Doesn't exist.

That's a huge difference.



Quote:
There's no logical reason to plead the 5th if you believe that you're innocent. Maybe at first to get some legal advice, but to constantly deny progress means that you're hiding something. It maybe unrelated to the accusation, but you're hiding something.

In the most simplistic scenario, that's like someone accusing you of putting something in your pocket and you refusing to empty your pocket.


Um... Except that's precisely how our legal system works. You are protected from the government demanding that you reveal what's in your pocket because otherwise, it'll run around looking through everyone's pockets all the time. That's why they must have a warrant to search your pocket. And while the 5th amendment may be irritating sometimes, if it didn't exist we'd have judges dragging people into court and demanding that they prove they're not guilty. That's not how our system of law works.

The presumption of innocence means that you don't have to tell anyone why you are innocent. The other guy has to prove you are guilty.

And when it comes to investigations rather than trials, the 5th amendment is what prevents fishing expeditions. It makes it so that an investigation has to provide sufficiently powerful paper evidence against someone so as to make the decision to explain themselves more worthwhile to them than potentially damaging. If I can convict you on the evidence I have, it often behooves you to talk. But if I can't, you should stay silent. In the whole lane closure thing, there's so very very little actual evidence of anything that there's no reason at all for anyone to talk on the record. Why should they? The only thing they can do is make some kind of silly mistake and accidentally say something that turns out to be untrue. Then they get themselves into trouble legally, and give the scandal hounds more red meat.

This is precisely what Kelly did wrong. It's entirely possible that when she was asked if she knew about the closures ahead of time, she had completely forgotten that one brief email exchange in which it was mentioned. See, if we start with the assumption that this was a nefarious plot that she was in on, then of course she knew all about this and it was high up on her list of things she was paying attention to, and thus her claiming not to know about it becomes a lie that proves the assumption. But if we instead assume that there was no plot, then this casual conversation would not have stuck with her at all, and the more likely explanation was that she just plain forgot about it. It wasn't important to her, right? If went through the past 6 months of your email and text messages and asked you detailed questions about what information you knew about at specific times, there are good odds that you would get some things wrong as well.


Point being that it doesn't matter why. It only matters that one thing one person close to the governor said was incorrect. That feeds the flames of the scandal. That's why Christie was ****** at her. Whether she deliberately lied, or just plain forgot, she made this into a big thing. And political staff at that level are supposed to know better.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 Mar 04 2014 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not hit the link button then? If this is so easy to find, it should be easy to link, right? But you can't, can you? Because... wait for it... it doesn't exist.
For one it really isn't my job to do your research for you. Second, links are a pain in the *** to post from a cellphone on Zam so there's little actual benefit for me. Third, you're the one ******** about not being able to find quotes made in August. You are quite literally the last person on Earth that believes there is any possibility these closures were legitimate when even the administration doesn't.

But if you want to keep playing semantics to clutch to a debunked theory, by all means.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#269 Mar 04 2014 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
I haven't found any quote of Christie confirming that the bridge closings were done for nefarious payback reasons rather than as part of a legitimate traffic study.


I have not been following this story very closely, I'll admit, but I did find this:

Quote:

CHRISTIE: [A]s I said at the time of January 9th when I did my press conference, I still don’t know whether there was a traffic study that morphed into –

HOST: You still don’t know at this point whether there was a traffic study?

CHRISTIE: Well, what I’m saying, Eric, did this start as a traffic study that morphed into some political shenanigans, or did it start as political shenanigans that became a traffic study?


Which seems to indicate that he is acknowledging it was "political shenanigans."

And before you say anything, I realize it is MSNBC, but this is supposed to be a direct quote from some local radio program that Christie was on. I know nothing about Jersey radio, and I don't feel like doing any more research into exactly what program he was on.


#270 Mar 04 2014 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why not hit the link button then? If this is so easy to find, it should be easy to link, right? But you can't, can you? Because... wait for it... it doesn't exist.
For one it really isn't my job to do your research for you. Second, links are a pain in the *** to post from a cellphone on Zam so there's little actual benefit for me. Third, you're the one ******** about not being able to find quotes made in August. You are quite literally the last person on Earth that believes there is any possibility these closures were legitimate when even the administration doesn't.

But if you want to keep playing semantics to clutch to a debunked theory, by all means.

This whole thread makes me wonder if gbaji is Christie's...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#271 Mar 04 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
There's no logical reason to plead the 5th if you believe that you're innocent.


Yes there is. Anyone who told you otherwise is a moron, and doing you a disservice.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#272 Mar 04 2014 at 4:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You can argue that maybe those invoking the 5th here are also doing so to protect someone higher up. But the key difference is the lack of solid paper trail even suggesting such a thing. That simply doesn't exist here. It's the point I've been making all along in this thread. I keep trying to find the piece that connects "traffic closures occur" to "governors office closed them to get revenge on democrats" and can't find any. What I see is an "investigation" that starts with the speculation that such a revenge plot occurred, and just leaps to the assumption that it must have happened, and proceeds to investigate all those that it thinks might have been involved.

That's because you keep insisting that this is about revenge. Again, this is about what Christie knew and when. As a result, there is no difference in them pleading the 5th to potentially protect Christie on what he knew and when.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that's precisely how our legal system works. You are protected from the government demanding that you reveal what's in your pocket because otherwise, it'll run around looking through everyone's pockets all the time. That's why they must have a warrant to search your pocket. And while the 5th amendment may be irritating sometimes, if it didn't exist we'd have judges dragging people into court and demanding that they prove they're not guilty. That's not how our system of law works.

The presumption of innocence means that you don't have to tell anyone why you are innocent. The other guy has to prove you are guilty.

And when it comes to investigations rather than trials, the 5th amendment is what prevents fishing expeditions. It makes it so that an investigation has to provide sufficiently powerful paper evidence against someone so as to make the decision to explain themselves more worthwhile to them than potentially damaging. If I can convict you on the evidence I have, it often behooves you to talk. But if I can't, you should stay silent. In the whole lane closure thing, there's so very very little actual evidence of anything that there's no reason at all for anyone to talk on the record. Why should they? The only thing they can do is make some kind of silly mistake and accidentally say something that turns out to be untrue. Then they get themselves into trouble legally, and give the scandal hounds more red meat.

This is precisely what Kelly did wrong. It's entirely possible that when she was asked if she knew about the closures ahead of time, she had completely forgotten that one brief email exchange in which it was mentioned. See, if we start with the assumption that this was a nefarious plot that she was in on, then of course she knew all about this and it was high up on her list of things she was paying attention to, and thus her claiming not to know about it becomes a lie that proves the assumption. But if we instead assume that there was no plot, then this casual conversation would not have stuck with her at all, and the more likely explanation was that she just plain forgot about it. It wasn't important to her, right? If went through the past 6 months of your email and text messages and asked you detailed questions about what information you knew about at specific times, there are good odds that you would get some things wrong as well.
The 5th amendment doesn't prevent harassment. If you're being wrongly targeted for a crime, that is an entirely different problem. Are you're arguing that Kelly is being harassed?

Not pleading the 5th, doesn't mean you have to be 100% accurate. You simply say "I don't fully remember, it was such a long time ago and it wasn't anything of value for me to remember". Then you say "I don't know". She didn't because saying that could be proven false and be held against her. Christie said the very same thing, if someone told him, then it was in passing and wasn't anything of any importance. So, there is no logical reason to plead the 5th in that situation.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#273 Mar 04 2014 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
There's no logical reason to plead the 5th if you believe that you're innocent.


Yes there is. Anyone who told you otherwise is a moron, and doing you a disservice.


Almalieque in context wrote:
There's no logical reason to plead the 5th if you believe that you're innocent. Maybe at first to get some legal advice, but to constantly deny progress means that you're hiding something. It maybe unrelated to the accusation, but you're hiding something.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#274 Mar 04 2014 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
The legal advice in this case being 'never talk to the police, ever'.

You shouldn't, by the way, unless you want to dob someone else in. Even then, be on your guard.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#275 Mar 04 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Kavekk wrote:
The legal advice in this case being 'never talk to the police, ever'.

You shouldn't, by the way, unless you want to dob someone else in. Even then, be on your guard.
Exercising your Miranda rights is not the same as you pleading the 5th in court with a lawyer. They both support the notion of self incrimination, but one is much more formalized than the other. So, I stand by my statement that there is no reason to plead the 5th after receiving legal advice/representation if you believe that you are innocent, unless you are hiding something.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#276 Mar 04 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
The Miranda warning is just an explanation of the Fifth Amendment to a suspect under questioning. It's the same thing: refusing to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination, whether for the crime under consideration now, or something completely unrelated.

Well, no, that's not accurate. You can't plead the 5th in court to avoid answering ANY questions, as you can in a police station. Was that your point? I have to ask because your points are often somewhat obscure.


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 6:17pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#277 Mar 04 2014 at 8:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Samira wrote:
The Miranda warning is just an explanation of the Fifth Amendment to a suspect under questioning. It's the same thing: refusing to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination, whether for the crime under consideration now, or something completely unrelated.

Well, no, that's not accurate. You can't plead the 5th in court to avoid answering ANY questions, as you can in a police station. Was that your point? I have to ask because your points are often somewhat obscure.


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 6:17pm by Samira


I acknowledged the connection of the two. Let me try again.

If you're being questioned by a police officer, you probably don't have a lawyer near by to advise you. You maybe emotional, confused, etc. Saying or doing anything could make the situation worse. It's probably better just to comply. That's a completely different scenario AFTER the arrest/detention when you're in court days/weeks later after being advised by a lawyer. If you are continually denying any progress, then you're obviously hiding something. There is no reason in the latter scenario to plead the 5th unless you're hiding something. At that time, you're not talking to the police and if you are, it's in a court room.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#278 Mar 04 2014 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Well, that's the way a jury would see it, but it isn't the way the law reads. It isn't the original intent of the amendment. You are specifically instructed NOT to infer guilt from silence.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#279 Mar 04 2014 at 9:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, that's the way a jury would see it, but it isn't the way the law reads. It isn't the original intent of the amendment. You are specifically instructed NOT to infer guilt from silence.

Given the fact that we are humans, that doesn't actually happen. Even though you are "innocent till proven guilty", you are still seen as having potential guilt, or you wouldn't be there in the first place. Else, we would randomly take people to court.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#280 Mar 04 2014 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
People shutting down means two things: Less paperwork and a coffee break sooner.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#281 Mar 04 2014 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
The Miranda warning is just an explanation of the Fifth Amendment to a suspect under questioning. It's the same thing: refusing to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination, whether for the crime under consideration now, or something completely unrelated.

Well, no, that's not accurate. You can't plead the 5th in court to avoid answering ANY questions, as you can in a police station. Was that your point? I have to ask because your points are often somewhat obscure.


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 6:17pm by Samira


I acknowledged the connection of the two. Let me try again.

If you're being questioned by a police officer, you probably don't have a lawyer near by to advise you. You maybe emotional, confused, etc. Saying or doing anything could make the situation worse. It's probably better just to comply. That's a completely different scenario AFTER the arrest/detention when you're in court days/weeks later after being advised by a lawyer. If you are continually denying any progress, then you're obviously hiding something. There is no reason in the latter scenario to plead the 5th unless you're hiding something. At that time, you're not talking to the police and if you are, it's in a court room.


No. that's not what it's saying. You should NEVER talk to police, regardless of whether they are asking you at a crime scene, during an interrogation or at any other point in the process. That's what you're lawyer is for, should you require one. I mean, you can talk about the sports and the weather at a police benefit barbeque or something, I guess.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#282 Mar 04 2014 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
No. that's not what it's saying. You should NEVER talk to police, regardless of whether they are asking you at a crime scene, during an interrogation or at any other point in the process. That's what you're lawyer is for, should you require one. I mean, you can talk about the sports and the weather at a police benefit barbeque or something, I guess.


Can I talk to them if I'm reporting a crime...? Smiley: um
#283 Mar 04 2014 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
Well, that's the way a jury would see it, but it isn't the way the law reads. It isn't the original intent of the amendment. You are specifically instructed NOT to infer guilt from silence.

Given the fact that we are humans, that doesn't actually happen. Even though you are "innocent till proven guilty", you are still seen as having potential guilt, or you wouldn't be there in the first place. Else, we would randomly take people to court.


Given two equally guilty or innocent people, those who try to "help" their case via talking to the police go to jail, receive fines, etc. at a significantly higher rate.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#284 Mar 04 2014 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
No. that's not what it's saying. You should NEVER talk to police, regardless of whether they are asking you at a crime scene, during an interrogation or at any other point in the process. That's what you're lawyer is for, should you require one. I mean, you can talk about the sports and the weather at a police benefit barbeque or something, I guess.


Can I talk to them if I'm reporting a crime...? Smiley: um


Did you do the crime?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#285 Mar 04 2014 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
Well, that's the way a jury would see it, but it isn't the way the law reads. It isn't the original intent of the amendment. You are specifically instructed NOT to infer guilt from silence.

Given the fact that we are humans, that doesn't actually happen. Even though you are "innocent till proven guilty", you are still seen as having potential guilt, or you wouldn't be there in the first place. Else, we would randomly take people to court.



It does happen if you decide to consider the evidence presented as dispassionately as possible, which is what a jury is supposed to do. And while I truly don't believe that cops will arrest just anyone, I do believe that they are under tremendous pressure to close cases and when any suspect shows up, they stop looking.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#286 Mar 05 2014 at 6:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
TLW wrote:
No. that's not what it's saying. You should NEVER talk to police, regardless of whether they are asking you at a crime scene, during an interrogation or at any other point in the process. That's what you're lawyer is for, should you require one. I mean, you can talk about the sports and the weather at a police benefit barbeque or something, I guess.
...
Given two equally guilty or innocent people, those who try to "help" their case via talking to the police go to jail, receive fines, etc. at a significantly higher rate


Almalieque at least three times now wrote:
If you're being questioned by a police officer, you probably don't have a lawyer near by to advise you
I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. I'm differentiating the police talking directly to you from you talking in court with a lawyer. Just because you choose NOT to talk to police has no relevance if you decide to talk in court, hence the Miranda Rights. If you decide to NEVER say ANYTHING to ANYONE EVER, you are hiding something.

TLW wrote:

Did you do the crime?

What difference does it make if you say "never"?

Samira wrote:
It does happen if you decide to consider the evidence presented as dispassionately as possible, which is what a jury is supposed to do. And while I truly don't believe that cops will arrest just anyone, I do believe that they are under tremendous pressure to close cases and when any suspect shows up, they stop looking.

There are reasons why the jury is scanned before selected. We understand that simply asking people to not be biased is not feasible. At this point, it's not even about bias or emotion, but logic. There is no logical reason not to talk in court with a lawyer if you are completely innocent. Are you suggesting the court to dismiss logic as well?

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 2:03pm by Almalieque

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 2:04pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#287 Mar 05 2014 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
You don't have the option "not to talk in court" unless by doing so you would incriminate yourself, so yes. At that point you are saying that you are avoiding incriminating yourself, by definition.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#288 Mar 05 2014 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Samira wrote:
You don't have the option "not to talk in court" unless by doing so you would incriminate yourself, so yes. At that point you are saying that you are avoiding incriminating yourself, by definition.


If you're on trail, you can choose not to testify, though, right? I'm unsure why someone would agree to testify, then plead the fifth.

Or maybe I just really don't understand the court system. That's incredibly possible.
#289 Mar 05 2014 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
If you're on trail, you can choose not to testify, though, right?

You can always be subpoenaed and called up as a witness for trials not directly involving you. You can also be called up by the prosecution at your trial (which is where you'd typically plead). There wouldn't be much point in going up during your defense and then pleading.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#290 Mar 05 2014 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
If you're on trail, you can choose not to testify, though, right?

You can always be subpoenaed and called up as a witness for trials not directly involving you. You can also be called up by the prosecution at your trial (which is where you'd typically plead). There wouldn't be much point in going up during your defense and then pleading.


It would be during the cross that you'd plead.

So if I'm accused of, oh, I don't know, smothering my husband in his sleep, the prosecution can force me to testify?
#291 Mar 05 2014 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
If you're on trail, you can choose not to testify, though, right?

You can always be subpoenaed and called up as a witness for trials not directly involving you. You can also be called up by the prosecution at your trial (which is where you'd typically plead). There wouldn't be much point in going up during your defense and then pleading.


It would be during the cross that you'd plead.

So if I'm accused of, oh, I don't know, smothering my husband in his sleep, the prosecution can force me to testify?
They can force you to undergo questioning - cross examination in the case of the prosecution. If you feel your answer would incriminate you, you would plead the fifth.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#292 Mar 05 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
ONLY if you're called as a witness for the defense. Most defense lawyers will not put their client on the stand.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#293 Mar 05 2014 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Here's a run down on when you can plead the Fifth:
http://www.selfincrimination.org/pleadingthefifth.html

I've no other interest in the site, but it looked to be fairly clear language. In the case of this thread, the relevant people pleading were subpoenaed before a legislative committee which isn't quite the same thing as a criminal trial.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Mar 05 2014 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Samira wrote:
You don't have the option "not to talk in court" unless by doing so you would incriminate yourself, so yes. At that point you are saying that you are avoiding incriminating yourself, by definition.


So, you agree with me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#295 Mar 05 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
And yeah, the fact that the resulting perception can be used to attack a prominent Republican likely adds to the reason why cooler heads haven't prevailed on this. I fully acknowledge that there's a possibility that this really was a plot for political revenge. But everything I've seen so far screams phony scandal.

It doesn't matter, because you missed the point. Real or not, the POINT of flogging this scandal for Democrats isn't what happened. Grow up, no one gives a **** what actually happened. The point is highlighting unfavorable parts of Cristie's personality then putting him under pressure to see if he reenforces the weaknesses you've highlighted. "Scandal" makes him look like a bully. Is he actually a bully? Turns out he is. There are hours of tape of him douchily playing a 9 year old tough guy with enemies and friends alike. "Scandal" makes him seem disloyal to freinds. Is he disloyal? Turns out he is. There weren't enough buses in Jersey to manage the tide of people he tried to throw under one.

Those things he did, the way he acted under pressure are what matters. It's not really particularly much worse if every allegation turns out to be true, the point was the perception that he's Dudley Dursley is what's going to stick. He can never be president now (not that he had much chance prior anyway) and it's quite possible enough damage as spilled over to the state GOP that they lose the next Gov election.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#296 Mar 05 2014 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
You don't have the option "not to talk in court" unless by doing so you would incriminate yourself, so yes. At that point you are saying that you are avoiding incriminating yourself, by definition.


So, you agree with me.



I have no idea.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#297 Mar 05 2014 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Samira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
You don't have the option "not to talk in court" unless by doing so you would incriminate yourself, so yes. At that point you are saying that you are avoiding incriminating yourself, by definition.


So, you agree with me.


I have no idea.


Well, obviously. Smiley: grin
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#298 Mar 05 2014 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Oh, I'm sure I'll muddle through somehow.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CST
ElneClare, JennockFV, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (31)