Mrebo

oojason said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

Ah, nice one - thanks for the explanation mate 😃

How does one seek a royal prerogative of mercy? Asking for a friend.

a substantial donation to the political party in power at the time (or family member of high ranking politician) usually does it mate 😉

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7700137.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/nov/23/drug-barons-haase-bennett
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3331678/Convicted-drug-dealer-bribed-former-Home-Secretary-Michael-Howard-for-early-release.html

I thought Elizabeth was above that! Maybe the problem is she is merely a figurehead? If so, maybe you all should consider giving her more power.

Liz may be - though she is just a figure head in reality.

Strangely enough I myself may be able to help your ‘friend’ - for I am a Nigerian Prince in exile am a cousin of a high ranking politician - whose party are currently in power. Just send £400,000 via paypal (mark it a gift 😉) and say no more…

I just got to googling whether Meghan Markle might ever become your queen. No definite answer but sounds plausible. If all goes well with the lotteries tonight or tomorrow night, the money will be headed your way. Let’s not tell Jay about this.

CatBus said:

Collipso said:

Ehm… https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra-sues-florida-gun-law/index.html

(CNN) - The National Rifle Association is suing the state of Florida after Gov. Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 7026 into law Friday, the first gun control legislation enacted in the state after the Parkland school massacre on February 14.

“This bill punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual,” executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Chris W. Cox said. “Securing our schools and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans are not mutually exclusive.”

I’m staying on the sidelines of this one. That law probably makes Florida schools more dangerous, just not due to the provisions that are being challenged by the NRA.

At least the law requires both a school district and local sheriff’s office approve before teachers are allowed to have guns. Florida seems like a crazy place so I don’t know if that possibility is remote. I wonder how the family of the coach who died feels about the program being named after him.

Handman said:

People use their phones to post to forums? They’re mad.

Also, zoom out.

I’m significantly more likely to use emoticons on my phone. There’s that little button with all the faces and animals and whatnot. It helps break up the work day too.

oojason said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

Ah, nice one - thanks for the explanation mate 😃

How does one seek a royal prerogative of mercy? Asking for a friend.

a substantial donation to the political party in power at the time (or family member of high ranking politician) usually does it mate 😉

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7700137.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/nov/23/drug-barons-haase-bennett
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3331678/Convicted-drug-dealer-bribed-former-Home-Secretary-Michael-Howard-for-early-release.html

I thought Elizabeth was above that! Maybe the problem is she is merely a figurehead? If so, maybe you all should consider giving her more power.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

oojason said:

This may be of use/interest to some of you discussing Pardons etc…

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

and the ‘Contact Us’ section may help get you some of the answers you are seeking (there is also an FAQ section too).

That page is for the “normal” pardon process, which Saucier wasn’t actually eligible for. What he got was a “political” pardon, which bypasses the whole vetting process described on that page. Whether the political pardons are qualitatively different than normal pardons in terms of their implications is an issue people could argue about, but I’d say most don’t.

I don’t think that’s right at all. There’s the presidential pardon. That page outlines the procedures for seeking it. The president may waive the requirements but that doesn’t make them irrelevant either.

I think what I said matches what you said, just with different words. There’s one pardon with different paths to getting it. The terms “normal” and “political” refer to the paths, not the pardons. Some might argue that the path you followed to get the pardon colors the pardon, but not me.

We are getting away from politics, I hope Dom doesn’t notice.

But Saucier did apply the normal way. Per the link the was denied the waiver for the five year waiting period but then the DOJ unilaterally restarted processing the application. So it was normal except for the unilateral decision to reverse on the waiver decision. More clearly political than many other pardons, but not outside the rules described on the page. So oojason was correct! You’re right that politics played a huge role here.

oojason said:

Ah, nice one - thanks for the explanation mate 😃

How does one seek a royal prerogative of mercy? Asking for a friend.

CatBus said:

oojason said:

This may be of use/interest to some of you discussing Pardons etc…

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

and the ‘Contact Us’ section may help get you some of the answers you are seeking (there is also an FAQ section too).

That page is for the “normal” pardon process, which Saucier wasn’t actually eligible for. What he got was a “political” pardon, which bypasses the whole vetting process described on that page. Whether the political pardons are qualitatively different than normal pardons in terms of their implications is an issue people could argue about, but I’d say most don’t.

I don’t think that’s right at all. There’s the presidential pardon. That page outlines the procedures for seeking it. The president may waive the requirements but that doesn’t make them irrelevant either.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

I’m a big believer in second chances.

So’s everyone who didn’t seek the death penalty on this case.

Sometimes you say something ridiculous and I don’t respond. This will be one of those times, starting now.

Uh huh. And a six year sentence means you don’t get a second chance. Sure.

His prison sentence was served. Freeing his from further handicaps is find by me.

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Does a pardon wipe a record clean?

No, a pardon counts as an admission of guilt (which apparently came as a surprise to Arpaio). So all the stuff you can’t do for having engaged in such-and-such an activity, you still can’t do, because you admitted to doing it in order to get the pardon. A lot of people believe this “admission of guilt” factor is why Don Siegelman never got a pardon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/?utm_term=.780726b7323f

SilverWook said:

Does a pardon wipe a record clean?

It ends any further punishment or handicaps related to the conviction. The record of conviction still exists.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Freaking out != destruction of evidence.

Yes…I think we’ve established that. And that he served his prison sentence for that act.

His 12 month sentence was for mishandling classified information. Prosecutors were seeking a longer sentence due to the aggravating factors. So no, he really didn’t serve any time at all for destruction of evidence.

That prosecutors sought a longer sentence than meted out isn’t remarkable. That the judge granted a such a short sentence seems significant.

I’m a big believer in second chances.

So’s everyone who didn’t seek the death penalty on this case.

Sometimes you say something ridiculous and I don’t respond. This will be one of those times, starting now.

CatBus said:

Freaking out != destruction of evidence.

Yes…I think we’ve established that. And that he served his prison sentence for that act.

I’m a big believer in second chances.

CatBus said:

This is pretty classic. Backstory not necessarily covered in the article: the guy gets investigated for mishandling classified info, probably on the pretty minor end of the scale, nothing at all akin to Snowden. Instead of allowing the investigation to reach this natural conclusion, however, he goes out and destroys his camera and computer’s hard drive immediately after he’s interviewed by the FBI. Suddenly this minor case got very serious, and he was charged and convicted after the FBI recovered bits of hard drive in the woods outside his house.

So he and his lawyers concoct a strategy to get him a pardon. Say “This is just like Hillary! Double standard! So unfair!” (focusing on the pretty low-level mishandling that started the investigation, not really mentioning the hard drive smashing incident at all) and get on FOX News so that they get some exclusive and uninterrupted Executive Time with the President.

Crazy plan? Stupid plan? It worked. He has now been pardoned. Lesson? Don’t fuck with the FBI, but the President can be played like a cheap fiddle by complete amateurs.

If what ultimately got Saucier got in trouble was freaking out, sounds good to me. He’s served his prison term. I’m pretty sure Trump mentioned this case during his campaign. And you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think Trump is playing everyone else like a cheap fiddle by granting this pardon.

SilverWook said:

Remember when Star Wars had it’s own aisle?

That is so pretty. Once I build a time machine that is where I will go.

No issue about a question mark. I thought semicolons would be better, but maybe doesn’t matter.

I lean toward semicolons but now I’m second-guessing that.

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Proper punctuation?

Well spotted.

SilverWook said:

https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/1361257-this-is-not-a-ric-olie-t-shirt

Not the one I was looking for, but it has the accent.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I really wanted to go into the newest Star Wars movie spoiler free, but people on this site have been carelessly referring to the film’s title outside of the spoiler thread, and I consider the title to be a major spoiler. I also saw someone post the movie poster too, and that’s a huge spoiler. I actually saw part of the trailer on Youtube! Now that I’ve been exposed to so many spoilers I just don’t even see a reason to watch the film.

I…

…

…this is a joke, right? I mean, it has to be, but just making sure.

Yes.

I’ve seen similar sentiments from people on this forum before.

Every single person on this forum is dumb.

That’s why we like you so much.

LexX said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

‘Mark Hamill gives advice to young girl afraid to wear ‘Star Wars’ shirt to school’…

http://ew.com/movies/2018/03/08/mark-hamill-star-wars-fan-t-shirt-school/ (in the article - not the video)

Would have been cool for a girl to wear a Star Wars shirt 30 years ago and don’t know why that would have changed. Good on Hamill.

I remember 20 years ago it wasn’t cool even for boys.

Even at 7 years old? I can buy it wasn’t cool at 17. Not that it stopped many of us, amirite?

Collipso said:

I wasn’t going to keep the debate going. No need to freak out simply because I said 2 things about Star Wars that relate to the topic at hand. I spoke of it the same way i would have spoken about any other franchise, if it were the case.

It’s too late!

Let’s keep seriousish discussions out of the venerable off topic section.

A bigger complaint is that people suffer from a lacking sense of humor.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Sir Ridley said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I really wanted to go into the newest Star Wars movie spoiler free, but people on this site have been carelessly referring to the film’s title outside of the spoiler thread, and I consider the title to be a major spoiler. I also saw someone post the movie poster too, and that’s a huge spoiler. I actually saw part of the trailer on Youtube! Now that I’ve been exposed to so many spoilers I just don’t even see a reason to watch the film.

Preferably you should never know what movie you’re seeing or even that you’re going to see a movie. You just wake up one day and everything is dark and suddenly the Star Wars logo appears in front of you and the movie plays. Perhaps the logo should be removed though, to not spoil that it’s a Star Wars movie. In fact, remove all Star Wars tropes, change the actors and the names and the music. And then before the credits it’s written “actually, this was a Star Wars movie, bet you didn’t see that coming!”.

Sounds like a natural progression for Rian’s next Star Wars films.

I wish, it’d be worth it just to see all the cry baby fans revert to a prenatal state and never be heard from again.

We have similar dreams.

Sir Ridley said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I really wanted to go into the newest Star Wars movie spoiler free, but people on this site have been carelessly referring to the film’s title outside of the spoiler thread, and I consider the title to be a major spoiler. I also saw someone post the movie poster too, and that’s a huge spoiler. I actually saw part of the trailer on Youtube! Now that I’ve been exposed to so many spoilers I just don’t even see a reason to watch the film.

Preferably you should never know what movie you’re seeing or even that you’re going to see a movie. You just wake up one day and everything is dark and suddenly the Star Wars logo appears in front of you and the movie plays. Perhaps the logo should be removed though, to not spoil that it’s a Star Wars movie. In fact, remove all Star Wars tropes, change the actors and the names and the music. And then before the credits it’s written “actually, this was a Star Wars movie, bet you didn’t see that coming!”.

Sounds like a natural progression for Rian’s next Star Wars films.

oojason said:

‘Mark Hamill gives advice to young girl afraid to wear ‘Star Wars’ shirt to school’…

http://ew.com/movies/2018/03/08/mark-hamill-star-wars-fan-t-shirt-school/ (in the article - not the video)

Would have been cool for a girl to wear a Star Wars shirt 30 years ago and don’t know why that would have changed. Good on Hamill.