Clinton: It’s ‘wrong’ for Bernie Sanders to make campaign promises he can’t keep

[24601]

16. My undergrad was the equivalent of a Major in Poly Sci (my school didn't have majors back then)

It's interesting, but the sample size is too small to draw any inference over the politics of the jury vote. At 7 AM on a Sunday, I'll bet the jury pool isn't that large.

Also, a few other thoughts.

Jury instructions are to apply DU standards rather than vote for the candidate of your choice. Even in our politically-active population, it's likely that some DUers will follow the instructions. Some probably will not.

In this regard, I'm also recalling my time in the Army - there is a few UCMJ punitive articles that apply to Officers, Cadets & Midshipman but not to Enlisted personnel. One of them is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman/Gentlewoman. The other is Contempt Towards Officials. It singles out a handful of people like POTUS, VPOTUS, SECDEF, the Governor if the State you are in, and a few more.

The elements of proof are
First, that the Officer, Cadet or midshipman/woman said/wrote words about the "protected" [my word] official and second, that in the context they were said, the words were contemptuous. Importantly, unlike the civil torts of libel or slander, the truth of the words is not a defense.

In the 90s, an Air Force Major General (2-star) remarked in a graduation address that Bill Clinton was a draft-dodging, dome-smoking womanizer. He was punished and his career was effectively over. I suppose if he had added...And as a fighter pilot, I recognize him as one of us and induct him as an honorary fighter pilot - Go Bill, save a few for us dude! the intent would not have been contemptuous and he could have been found no guilty.

So what is our real standard on DU? Is truth a defense? If it is opinion, if the poster sincerely believes it (hard to judge sometimes) should we let it stand? Should certain attacks on ANYBODY (for example going NAZI when it's not referring to a WWI NAZI) be removed without a jury because that kind of post degrades us as a community?

What I believe it is right now is that if four of the seven tend to agree and chuckle to them self, "well that captures the SOB the way I like", it stands.

I think we can do better. If I was doing Opposition Research for a Republican candidate, I would have a few staff LIVE on DU just to find the most vicious over the top comments of the day and send them to allied press that would put Democratic Candidates on the spot about disavowing to comments - just to drive wedges through fault lines.