Welcome to PatsFans.com

I hope this jerk gets 50 years

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wolfpack, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Remember that guy who hacked into Sarah Palin's e-mail? Turns out he faces a max penalty of 50 years. My favorite part is how he bragged about doing it, then broke down and cried like a little girl when he found out he was being investigated :rofl: What did the moron think was going to happen? No one would care?

    Anyway, just another liberal who doesn't believe that things like privacy belong to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans. And, of course, the requisite hate mail directed at Palin's children.

    Sarah Palin Testifies in Alleged E-Mail Hacker Trial - ABC News

    "He definitely talked about how he didn't believe in what she wanted to do," David Omiecinski, Kernell's roommate at the University of Tennessee, said, although adding that Kernell said nothing about hurting Palin.

    Kernell's roommate said the defendant bragged openly about what he did. But Davies told jurors that his client didn't attempt to get rid of any evidence on his laptop and that he cried when he found out that the FBI was investigating him. "He really couldn't have done more to let people know what he had done than he did," Davies said.

    Palin's family friend Ivey Frye told jurors that the hacker sent "vile" and "vulgar" e-mails to Palin's children and other relatives and friends, and that all their e-mail addresses were exposed.
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    I think he should get the same sentence as James O'Keefe for his attempt to bug a US Senator (and thus invade her privacy), but then again I don't favor a double standard.

    I think 50 years is sadistic for the level of either crime, but I'm a liberal.
  3. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,396
    Likes Received:
    248
    Ratings:
    +352 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    Cool. Precedent will be set and it won't be hard to figure out what these guys should get for the same crime.

    Breaking: Hackers Infiltrate World's Leading Climate Research Unit : TreeHugger
  4. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow. Back-to-back liberals derailing my thread. And here I thought that was against forum rules :rofl:
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,114
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +335 / 1 / -9

    He cried and blubbered because he was so brainwashed by Jon Stewart, NBC & Mush Mouth Matthews that he thought he was going to be a National Left Wing Liberal Hero, he pictured himself on The Today Show being interviewd by Matt (mouse face) Lauer, then joining the Girls On The View and being kissed on the mouth by lovely Whoopi Goldberg, instead he may wind up as some Gang Bangers Girl Friend in a dark smelly Cell.
    He is a victim of the Left Wing Palin/Bush haters.
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +329 / 6 / -8

    I personally hope that in his defense, the hacker sites the half-governor's support of other invasions of privacy. Over and over and over again. And I want the prosecuting attorney to scream "Objection! Bringing up the relevant facts is hijacking my prosecution!" I want it down on record, and I want it not to matter, and then I want the precedent set.

    PFnV
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,853
    Likes Received:
    84
    Ratings:
    +188 / 3 / -10

    This little child of a man is headed for looserville the rest of his life. Let's all pray for a successful prosecution.

    Dear God, let your grace shine upon the prosecution and convict this loser....

    Sincerely, PR :snob:
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,114
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +335 / 1 / -9

    amen, praise jesus...........
  9. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So in other words you want to just throw out all the rules of court and rules of trial to suit your political agenda, and somehow turn this one individual's crime into putting the victim on trial.

    Yup, just another example of how much liberals respect the rule of law and the rights of people who don't subscribe to their perverse agenda.
  10. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,243
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I hope you get fifty years in the same cell with him for saying something as moronic as saying he deserved fifty years for hacking her e-mail address.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +329 / 6 / -8

    Evidently I must have said that.

    I postulated that a prosecutor would object to bringing in a relevant argument.

    I postulated that his objection would be overruled.

    Are you postulating that a prosecutor should be able to argue that a defense should be thrown out because it is relevant? Or that the rules of trial actually provide for a relevant defense to be inadmissible?

    More to the point, there is a level of humor here as well, directed at compaints of "Wahhhh I've been hijacked!!!", essentially on the grounds that people are cognizant of the extent of right-wing extremist hypocrisy. One day invading privacy is good, the next day it is bad. One day dirty tricks are good, the next day they are bad. One day the rule of law is good, the next day it is bad - all dependent on whose ox is being gored, or being Bushed, if in fact you guys have had the word replaced by the Florida supreme court.

    :) sad, sad, sad.

    Okay, counsellor. Let me know precisely what rule of trial precludes the plaintiff's words from public record being entered into evidence; not to imply that the law does not apply to said plaintiff, but to support the argument against privacy rights that she has previously made vis a vis other such invasions of privacy, and that coincidentally apply in the defendent's own favor.

    Or is your understanding of the rules of trial that they preclude that a defendent mount a vigorous defense?
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,114
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +335 / 1 / -9

    I hope he gets 55 years----------:D
  13. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How would Sarah Palin's record as governor of Alaska, or her positions thereof, be relevant to this case? Answer: They wouldn't. But what you want is to put the victim on trial.
    What I am accurately stating is that Sarah Palin's actions as governor of Alaska are 100% irrelevant to the criminal trial of the individual accused of breaking into her e-mails. All your pathetic attempts to twist my words around are failing.
    Normally I would be kind to one as ignorant as yourself and politely correct your mistakes, but it is tough to overlook the gross ignorance of one behaving so condescendingly as you. Your problem is that your own statements show you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, so let me clue you in:

    This is a criminal trial, not a civil trial. Sarah Palin is not the plaintiff. If anyone is the plaintiff, it is the government - but there really is no plaintiff. Instead, the term used in criminal cases is the government is the prosecutor. Sarah Palin is the victim and, as such, she is allowed to testify. Neither she nor her personal beliefs are on trial here and they are not relevant to the facts of the matter. The law is the law and I know it pains you to hear this, but Republicans are entitled to as much protection under the law as Democrats.

    There isn't a single ethical judge in the country that would allow a defense lawyer to turn a politically motivated criminal action into a circus putting the victim on trial, which is clearly what you would like to see happen.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Rather than confront whether or not you have a double standard, you post that cop out answer? Wow. Or worse, can you really not see the glaring analogies put before you? Do you support 50 years for James O'Keefe and those who hacked the private emails at East Anglia? That would be a logical deduction from your wanting the Sarah Palin guy to get 50 years.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  15. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am not terribly familiar with the laws of Great Britain or the details behind that hacking case. (EDIT: To be clear, I am familiar with the results of the hacking case, but I am not terribly familiar with the British laws which may or may not have been broken to obtain those results). So let me address the analogy I feel is more apt, that being the one of James O'Keefe:

    If it is shown he is guilty of the crime for which he has been accused, then you're damn right I think they should throw the book at him (and his entire crew). An individual with absolutely no legal authority attempting to tap the phone of a private citizen is a serious crime; doing the same in a politically motavated violation of a United States Senator is 100 times worse and an egregious offense that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. 50 years would be generous.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  16. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,396
    Likes Received:
    248
    Ratings:
    +352 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    Murderers, child molestors and rapists don't get fifty years half the time. A little perspective might be nice.

    Should he be punished? Sure. So should anyone who hacks into someone else's email or taps a phone or otherwise tries to gain personal information on another human being or entity through illegal means.

    But 50 years??? Seems a bit like overkill to me.

    Besides, think what would happen to our already overcrowded jail which, as those here are quick to point out, are filled with scum-sucking vermin living on our dime with better health insurance than we have.

    edited to add: There was a case recently held in a federal court where the defendants had been charged with illegally obtaining approximately 18 million e-mail accounts with associated personal identifying information

    Here's the maximum penalty:

    The defendants admitted their respective roles in the online conspiracy to commit credit and bank card fraud, as well as identification document fraud. Mantovani also pleaded guilty to a second count of unlawful transfer of identification to facilitate criminal conduct. Mantovani admitted his role in illegally obtaining approximately 18 million e-mail accounts with associated personal identifying information.

    Both the conspiracy and unlawful transfer counts carry maximum prison sentences of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000.


    http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mantovaniPlea.htm
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +329 / 6 / -8

    Oops! So the sum total is:

    1) I said plaintiff. Got me! Sue me.

    2) While I suggested that Palin's positions on the invasion of privacy be incorporated in the defense, you counter that her actions as the half-governor of Alaska aren't relevant. That may well be true. But her official actions as half-governor - both legal ones and illegal ones - are not her positions on invasion of privacy.

    We agree that Palin is not on trial. We disagree on whether the defense has the right to include any arguments it wants - including Palin's - in the course of the defense. You have yet to point out a rule of trial that precludes any mention of Palin's own positions - yea, even in Palin's own words - as a part of the defense itself.

    3) Your pathetic use of pathetic and condescending reference to my condescension is pathetically condescending. Wow, this sure is fun!

    4) As noted above, counselor, the recommendation that Palin's views be incorporated in the defense, was in order that the prosecutor cry "Wahhhhh, they hijacked my case with relevant facts!" You have pathetically condescendingly missed the point, and gleefully and obtusely, I might add. Also you're peripatetic and obsequious, not to mention plenipotentiary and metatarsal. The penultimate sentence here, by the way, was also tongue in cheek, not to be confused with your own position of head in anus.

    PFnV
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,008
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +187 / 7 / -23

    I think the constitutionalists would take issue with this, unless there is a specific statute that addresses a Congressperson.. there may be something under the Patriot Act, but no one ever read it.

    There is an equal application of the law for all, unless otherwise defined.
  19. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, your admission that you said something which displayed your fundamental ignorance of how our legal system works is enough.
    Well then stop being so vague. Please point out where Sarah Palin has said that individual citizens, acting alone and with absolutely no legal authority, should be allowed to hack into the e-mails of public figures running for one of the highest offices in the land. And then I will point out the rule of trial that allows or forbids such a statement.
    Yeah, this is the response I expected from you. After I humiliated you by pointing our your gross ignorance of the law, your only comeback is really nothing more than 2nd grade insults, albeit a second grader with access to a thesaurus.

    By the way, to paraphrase Oneigo Montoya, I do not think some of those words mean what you think they do.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If you think breaking into the e-mails or wiretapping the phone of a vice-presidential candidate or a senator should be or will be treated the same way as doing that to some regular guy, you have a lot to learn about how the real world operates.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>