SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-judge-emails.html?_r=0
A federal judge on Friday ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written testimony under oath about why she set up a private computer server to send and receive emails while secretary of state, ensuring that the issue will continue to dog her presidential campaign until the eve of the election.
In a brief ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, approved a motion by the conservative advocacy organization Judicial Watch to pursue its vigorous campaign to expose Mrs. Clinton's use of the private server. In addition to requiring her testimony in writing, the judge allowed the group to depose a senior State Department aide who had warned two subordinates not to question her email practices.
Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime. Yet the controversy refuses to dissipate. This week, the bureau turned over to Congress the documents it compiled in the case, including a three-and-a-half hour interview with Mrs. Clinton, even as Republicans in Congress pressed their public case for her to be charged with perjury.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @08:57PM
> You're an AC and a jerk.
That's rich.
> Go ahead, fact check:
So what he actually wrote was:
"1 down and 534 to go. It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately.
Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."
All together that is easily something that can be taken as a threat. And "haha only joking" might work on the playground and with some Trump supporters, but not in the real world.
> I have no idea if he ever got his property back; knowing forfeiture laws, probably not.
He did get the guns back. For one thing the guns were not taken under forfeiture law, they were confiscated because he was no longer legally permitted to posses them. His license was eventually reinstated and the got the guns back.
> He closed his blog, changed jobs, and moved to another state.
No he didn't. At least not for another couple of years because in 2013 he was back at it again, [wickedlocal.com] making threatening statements and bring the same police force back to his home where they again suspended his FID and confiscated his firearms. This time they found weapons that were illegal stored and he was eventually charged.
As for suspending his firearms license? That was completely by the book, Mass gives the local sheriff 100% discretion to grant, deny, suspend or revoke a firearms license. You might disagree with their decision, but it clearly wasn't his writing about "corruption in politics" that brought him to their attention, it was his writing something threatening.
As it happens I lived in Arlington for a few years before these incidents and I have a friend there who applied for and received a license to own an AR-15 and learned all about how Mass's firearms license laws.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @11:28PM
No where in that statement does he imply he's going to attack someone. There is no threat, only a 1st amendment protected opinion. "Serial killers should target other criminals and leave regular citizen alone." You really believe someone should be arrested and have their property taken for making such a statement? The only thing that differs in the statements is the class of people, so you believe politicians are better than everyone else? They should have additional rights and protections not accorded to lesser people? Being able to criticize people in the government was supposed to be one of the major things that made us better than 3rd world countries.
How about "Terrorists should only kill those that harmed them"? Did that statement scare you? Do you think it would be better for terrorists to attack innocent people? Stop living in fear. Or are you going to misinterpret that as a threat: 'Stop living' in fear as in 'die while terrified'? If someone tells you to "drop dead" to you curse back or do you attack them thinking they're about to kill you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @03:26AM
> No where in that statement does he imply he's going to attack someone.
None of your example sentences are worded that same way. You qualified them with "serial killers should" and "terrorists should." What he wrote could reasonably be interpreted as "people like me should..."
You've never dealt with a psychopath before have you? That rhetorical style is exactly how they make threats. If he said that to anyone's face, he'd be charged for making a threat because any competent judge will see right through that fig leaf.
But not only did he not go to jail. He got his firearm license back and his guns back. That's the way the system is supposed to work, right?