Maggie's Farm

Because none of that is relevant to the indictment. Even if Trump declassified the documents, he would still in violation of the law. He was under subpoena. He can contest the subpoena in court, but it's a crime to willfully refuse to comply with the court order. Even declassified, the documents remain the property of the United States.

The Espionage Act concerns documents relating to the national security. Nuclear secrets and identifying information about foreign sources clearly relate to the national security. Hence, willfully retaining the documents when the government requires their return is a direct violation of the law, 18 U.S. Code § 793(e).


That's because they didn't willfully retain the documents when the government required their return. Indeed, they alerted the government to the existence of the documents.


Trump wasn't indicted for mere possession, but willful criminal conduct.


They couldn't prove Clinton willfully meant to house classified information on her server, and there was substantial evidence it was inadvertent.


Sure. That Adoph Hitler fellow seemed nice. The grandmother was complicit in the murder of ten thousand Jews. She received a suspended sentence.

Aggie: Because everything I don't like is Hitler !!

We didn’t introduce the topic of Nazis and mass murder. That was the original article. It’s important to bring those complicit in war crimes to court to face their accusers—even if they are grandmothers.

Hoss: Anyone who did that with private company information would be fired and blackballed

That would be an administrative issue, not a legal one. You are, in effect, agreeing with our point.

Hoss: giving her all the cover

At no point have we defended Clinton's use of a private server for government business. (Colin Powell used AOL.)

indyjonesouthere: Get out of public education, demand vouchers from your state and keep the feds out of education all together.

Leaving aside the racist history of how vouchers were used to fight integration, vouchers tend to reward the rich and undermine universal education. The tendency will be for government funding of education to decrease, with parents expected to make up the difference, creating a two-tiered system. Wealthier people will be able to make up the difference, while the poor will be relegated to last-resort schools with ever declining funds.

Hoss: a stranglehold on public education

Universal public education has coincided with the greatest economic expansion in world history, not just in the United States, but across the Western world. Perhaps public education is obsolete, but that is not your argument, which would require explaining why it worked for generations, but no longer meets current demands.

Nor have you addressed the argument about how vouchers could lead to the breakdown of universal education.

OneGuy: Public education has been captured by big unions . . .

That, at least, does attempt to address why the education system is different now than in previous generations. Teachers' unions have been a significant force since the 1950s. The generation that were children in the 1950s were instrumental in developing the personal computer, cellular phones, smart phones, the information superhighway, DNA sequencing, fiber optics, laparoscopy, etc. You might suppose the effect is cumulative over time, but then we have a new wave of technology coming out of the West in the form of artificial intelligence.

OneGuy: and is being used to increase the power of the communist at the expense of the childrens education.

Then you go off the rails.

Hoss: You know correlation does not equal causation.

True enough, but we have the known mechanisms of an educated workforce contributing to both production and consumption.

Hoss: It no longer meets current demands because it’s become a vehicle for teachers union’s power and their ideology

From what we have seen, that is an overgeneralization based on outlying examples. The vast majority of schools work hard to teach the fundamentals. Education has always been fraught with difficulties. It's important to look for trends, but it's also important to maintain existing institutions before casting them aside without a consideration of the unintended consequences. This restraint is called "conservatism."

indyjonesouthere: race baiting

It has nothing to do with Marxism. Were you not aware of the racist history of vouchers?

indyjonesouthere: When every student gets a voucher …

You failed to address either point: the racist history of vouchers, or that vouchers may lead to a long term reduction in education spending, leading to a two-tiered educational system.

indyjonesouthere: The funding method you described isn't a voucher.

They were called vouchers or grants, depending on the state. They are part of American history, and occurred in living memory.

indyjonesouthere: This will do nothing to keep students from attending a "pubic" school.

It has to do with incentives. Once the social contract is broken, there will be increasing pressure to reduce spending on public schools. The first beneficiary will be upper income families who already pay for private school, with vouchers representing a large discount, while they make up the difference to pay for a higher quality school. Upper middle income families may now be able to use the voucher and pay a bit more to afford a higher quality school. As higher income families leave the public system, political support for public schools fades. Why should they pay high taxes just to receive a smaller amount back in the form of a voucher? Why not reduce taxes, and let every family pay on their own? Sure, maybe keep a public school option for the poor, but poor minority people have little political power, so public school budgets will shrink and be treated as welfare. Segregation wins in the end.

Now, it may be possible to devise a system that addresses these historical problems and the economic and political concerns—but not if you don’t recognize and acknowledge them.

indyjonesouthere: Grants and Vouchers are NOT the same thing.

As noted, some states called them vouchers, some called them grants. But the purpose was to perpetuate segregation.


Not sure why you argue about well-documented history. You also ignored the point about how vouchers could undermine political and therefore financial support for public schools.

indyjonesouthere: Vouchers are ALWAYS used as a method to provide education.

Not in the American South during the period known as Massive Resistance. Indeed, vouchers were an example of systemic racism, where the laws appeared neutral on their face, but had discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect.



indyjonesouthere: And ALL students get the same voucher.

That's right. Students all received the same voucher. But there were no private schools that admitted Blacks. In Prince William County, Virginia, Black children couldn't go to school for five years. It happened all over the South, and there are people alive today who lived through that time and were deprived of an education. That history doesn't go away because you find it uncomfortable.

As for the incentives. Let's assume a public education is $10,000, and a deluxe education is $12,000-15,000. The rich pay $15,000 to send their children to a fancy military academy. But, even though they have more political power than others, they represent a very small percentage of people, so political support for public education remains strong.

Now, let's do vouchers. Students all receive vouchers for $10,000. The immediate benefit is that rich people get a big $10,000 discount on that fancy military academy. (Who will consider the plight of the rich?!) The next thing that happens is that more people can now afford a deluxe education which used to cost $12,000-$15,000 but now costs only $2,000 to $5,000. A large portion of the people can now afford to have a deluxe education. Lower income people can still send their children to public schools, though. The awesome power of markets, amirite?

But markets are all about incentives. Upper income people now think it would be better to just reduce taxes and let everyone pay for their own schooling. Why should they pay $20,000 in taxes just to receive a $10,000 voucher? Taxes are cut and public schools become the dumping ground for poor and minority children, and without public support, public education starts to be seen as welfare, and public schools wither.

Again, we're not saying it isn't possible to devise a system that addresses these historical problems and the economic and political concerns—but not if you don’t recognize and acknowledge them.