Lynch broke the Law.

18 USC §§ 202 – 209; Executive Order 12674 on Principles of Ethical Conduct as amended by EO 12731; Uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635; Department of Justice regulations, 5 CFR Part 3801; Department of Justice regulations, 28 CFR Part 45; Executive branch standards of conduct, 5 USC § 735; and, United States Department of Justice Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct, 14 Principles for Ethical Conduct:

“14. Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.”

5 C.F.R 2635.101 (b)

“An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.”

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton severely undermined the already low public confidence in her agency’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.



I truly think they new they would get caught.
The real question is Why?

not a surprising response as violence begets violence.

“The philosophy of nonviolence which I learned from Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr., during my involvement in the civil rights movement was first responsible for my change in diet…Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment ‘Thou Salt not kill’ applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other – war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like – but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport. Animals suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain…the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life.” – Dick Gregory

Now have David Lynch direct this.

And if they were reading these back to another dude, especially the ones involving generic violence I bet they would have no trouble looking him in the eye while reading them. They might even joke about it.
I have to wonder if the discomfort comes entirely from the material they are reading or is it also from the realization that they're on camera reading this. And if people decide they are not showing the proper level of shame or guilt then there will be an internet lynch mob waiting for them the next time they log on.

Ahhh....now THAT'S finally an explanation that makes sense. You should post that.

The Fine Brothers explanation is TERRIBLE, confusing, and rambling....and I think that's probably on purpose because if they just said 'we just seized control of ALL "react!' videos and you have to give us 1/2 your YouTube/internet money if you make any' would probably get them lynched pretty quick.

It's all about exerting control over other people's content and taking 1/2 their money....and offering absolutely nothing for it.
This will be (already has been) abused to steal money from others under the threat of 'trademark infringement' where they didn't even create the thing they trademarked.

Even worse than it sounded at the onset.

Fuck the Fine Brothers. From now on, any "'X'- reacts!" videos are getting my downvote until the Fine Bro's are out of business and their trademark removed.

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

No, bigoted narrative, all.
They take a story about one gang of Asians that raped one girl and try to use it to 'prove' Muslim rape gangs are all over Europe praying on young white girls because the Muslim culture condones it. This is the same lie used to create the KKK, in case you're ignorant of history. They claimed gangs of freed slaves were raping white women left and right, and needed some lynching. That certainly seems the goal of those producing these videos.

@RFlagg
i am watching the video right now and have not gotten to the jessica lynch segment,but the jessica lynch story was utter bullshit:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0905-09.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bbc-proves-jessica-lynch-rescue-story-was-a-hoax/

i agree with his underlying message that opinions are being manipulated by those who most profit/benefit.noam chomsky probably makes the best argument in his book "manufacturing consent".

... so is he claiming that ISIS/ISIL/DAIISH is a all a production? I mean at one point he says that horrible things are happening, but then also that it was just a production? Is he also trying to claim that Jessica Lynch wasn't really a POW? While I agree that the media is overselling the problem to promote a war, which will make the ISIS situation worse, I'm not sold on it being a fancy production.

As to ISIL (or whatever the proper term is now) kill one leader and another takes their place, it'll never end, and as you kill more and more of them and more innocent civilians are killed, human shields or not, you make it easier to radicalize elements of that population. And as more and more people turn against Islam as a whole and not just radical elements, you make it easier and easier to radicalize more people and progressively make the situation worse, which is perhaps what the Republicans want when they and their media arm want... if that is his point, that they are using the situation and making it worse on purpose, then that's one thing, but he seems to be going on fringe territory here and suggesting it is all a production... that whole paragraph is a bit oddly worded, and more ramble than usual, I'll blame being tired...

I'll give it an upvote anyhow, even if I'm not in full agreement with the idea that the whole thing is a production...

No David Lynch, but rather Roger Ballen. Different styles, both are freeky though. Good shit.

Zef!

"How Do You Feel", available now via cultco Music.
Tumblr Listening Experience: howdoyoufeeljoywave.com/
Single: itunes.apple.com/us/album/tongues-feat.-kopps-single/id797851423
EP stream: smarturl.it/jwstep1
EP download: smarturl.it/JWEP1
Directed by DANIELS & Zak Stoltz vimeo.com/zstoltz
DP Larkin Seiple
AD Jesse Fleece
Production Designer Jason Kisvarday
Stylist Corban Poorboy
Hair/Makeup Eleanor Marks
Stunts Jess Harbeck
Catering Stefanie Lynch
Starring Sarah Hess
Producer Jonathan Wang
PM Judy Craig
Exec Producer Candice Ouaknine
Prettybird Productions
Music video by Joywave performing Tongues (official video). (C)
2014 Cultco Music / Hollywood Records, Inc.

*promote Marshawn Freakin' Lynch ... Go Hawks!

The simplest and best answer is just that people are stupid.

A lot of people though don't believe based on evidence their view is right, but through evidence that an opposing view is wrong. That one logical fallacy just murders our species and public education aught to spend 1 whole year just shaming that out of the populations heads. This is not just on scientific matters, but the very, very common I'm not voting for candidate X I'm voting against candidate Y.

That all said, Michael Mann is IMO contributing to the problem of skepticism of climate research. I'm not even referring to his extracurricular stuff like this and blogging. Go and read his journal articles and dig into the appendices and look at the math and graphing methods used... not the lynch pin kind of work we really want being championed as the state of climate science research unless we want it to be relegated to the status of 'soft' science .