So True

Comments

  1. Winter weather has arrived!

  2. NEW YORK, NY—The country has been faced with a severe shortage of Democratic candidates. With only 5,762 candidates left to choose from, Democrats were beginning to worry they might not be able to find the worst possible candidate to challenge Donald Trump.

    The crisis came to a breaking point last week when Beto O’Rourke dropped out of the race, leaving the number of Democratic candidates at dangerously low levels.
    Thankfully, billionaire Michael Bloomberg has stepped up to the plate, solving the crisis by entering the race.
    “We’re saved!” said one relieved voter in Ohio. “I was starting to worry that we’d have fewer than a thousand candidates left eventually.”
    Experts have warned that if we don’t replenish the supply of Democratic candidates, the primary won’t be as fun because there won’t be as many wacky characters to make fun of. “Please, if you feel inclined to volunteer, run for president so we can keep this circus going.”

  3. Jeff Bezos would happily lock his employees in his warehouse and work them to death, hire replacement workers, have those workers harvest the old workers’ organs, then package and ship them to hospitals via 2-day Prime.

    The question is simple.

    Why doesn’t this kind of thing happen with American Corporations?

  4. Canine Weapon says:

    (2nd attempt)

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    MATHIUS…………. especially for you my friend. You MUST take the half hour to listen to this interview. I thought Prager was better at interviewing than this but you will get the information despite him bumbling around.

    https://www.redstate.com/slee/2019/11/09/must-listen-dennis-prager-scores-interview-gen.-flynns-alleged-honeytrap-story-one-americans-need-hear

    To SUFA: Is it possible this could be the Nexis of the whole Russia Gate BS? And could it be so simple as a “paid informant” wanting to please his masters so much he made up a story which happened to fall into a storm of hatred for Mr. Trump. What is missing here is the timeline connection to the Steel dossier. The other interesting thing here is that Flynn was a lifelong Democrat, which I did not remember. So Flynn was tripped up over not answering questions honestly about his political work with Turkey and other countries BEFORE he became a Republican?? Not sure of the timeline on that one either.

    Now for the bigger question. If as Svetlana says, the destruction of Flynn was about his open criticism of Obama over ISIS, then WHO directed the DIS people to help create the phony narrative about Flynn? Or who contacted Halper to “lead him into the story”?? Remember, Halper was not at the dinner where he claims to “have seen” the honey trap sprung.

  6. NEW YORK, NY—In a special PSA at the end of a news segment this morning, ABC News asked the station’s viewers to send in any evidence on Jeffrey Epstein and his possible connections among the rich and powerful, so that they could destroy said evidence and then murder the person who sent it in.

    “If you have anything that would help us uncover how deep this thing goes, please, we beg you: send it to our tipline so we can immediately bury it,” one on-air personality pleaded with the audience. “It’s important that we find out how many connections Epstein had among the political elite, so we can shield those elites from any damaging accusations.”
    ABC News has provided a form on its website for you to send in evidence on the Epstein scandal and fill in your name and address. You must accept the station’s terms of service, which include allowing them to send agents to your house to scrub you from existence.
    “You might think this is a bad thing, getting killed for sending us evidence—but keeping our elite friends out of jail is far more important than your personal safety,” the anchor concluded. “Remember, the needs of the rich and powerful outweigh the needs of the you.”

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    I am sick and tired of a “Selection Committee” picking the playoff champs based on their “personal opinions”. Here is my take on the CF ranking picture for the final four and I don’t give a darn about arguments that this is not the “best four teams”. If you can’t win your conference and play real opponents then you don’t get picked. My picks are based on ASSUMPTION that their records stand at the end.

    SEC: Winner of the LSU v Georgia championship game……..YES.
    ACC: Clemson if they win the ACC Championship game. If they lose, NO ACC team.
    Big 12: Baylor if they win out. If not then NO Big 12 team.
    Big 10: Winner of Ohio St. vs. Minnesota championship game….YES
    PAC 12: Winner of Oregon v. Utah championship game, …YES, depending on ACC and Big 12 outcomes.

    So how do I see it with these assumptions and caveats?

    LSU or Georgia
    Clemson
    Ohio St. or Minnesota
    Oregon or Utah

    The alternative outcome, which is very possible is:

    LSU or Georgia
    Clemson
    Ohio St. or Minnesota
    Baylor

    As I said, this is based on assumptions. If those fail, like if both Baylor and Clemson lose their championship games then there is an open slot for a different team. I would probably look to the SEC first, such as LSU if it lost to Georgia then the Big 10, if Ohio St. lost to Minnesota.

    The “Rankings” between now and end of season don’t matter to me. I read this morning that Minnesota can’t move up more than 5 or 6 slots in the polling because….. it hasn’t been done before. Well BS to that. They just beat the #4 team in the country. If they win out and beat Ohio St. for the title then they deserve the shot.

    How would I do the ranking myself??? UNDEFEATED teams in major conference first group. Then rank by apparent strength. The rest don’t matter much at this time. The Bowl games will be decided by the end of the season. Several potential teams will fall out by then. The rest is really about the bowl committees deciding who to invite anyway.
    LSU
    Clemson
    Ohio St.
    Minnesota
    Baylor

    • Why not increase the playoffs from four teams to 8….the winners Big 12, PAC 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Independent, and 2 wildcards. As long as all the writers are on the East coast and West coast call the shots, the rest of the schools will be snubbed.

      Baylor has a chance of being undefeated and not in any top four but would be a wildcard with any other school that stands out…

      On the TV today, I saw the college playoff picture where the writers were saying that an SEC 8-2 team is better than a undefeated Baylor team. They were showing the scenarios. It is going to be interesting to see where Alabama ends up. Bets?

      • I know…..I know….it is TV revenues but that is simply not fair.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I agree with an 8 team playoff. Each major conference winner. I would add the other conferences before going indep. and wildcard. Notre Dame can join a conference if they want to play for a title.

        Also make each conference at least 18 teams. 9 in each division with 8 division games. 1 Conf. champion game, Plus 3 potential playoff games for total of 12 games.

        That is more than enough football for college players in my book.

        Those claiming an 8-2 SEC team is better than Baylor is the reason they shouldn’t have any say in the picks. Doesn’t matter what they think. What matters is the wins and losses.

        Now for the bigger question. What the hell is wrong with the Cowboys???? I expected more with Kellen Moore’s play calling. But tonight they looked like last year. Calling the same play over and over just to watch Elliot thrown for a loss.

        • I do not understand it either and neither do about 3 million other people down here. You have a quarterback that threw for 400 yards and three touchdowns…..you have a quarterback that marched the team down to the 5 yard line on nothing but passes. You had 6 shots at the end zone from inside the 20 and 2 minutes…………then you run the ball against a defense that shut down your running game the whole time. Nancy Pelosi could have called a better game at the end……..Hell……even MATHIUS …………………..no……even the DREAD PIRATE could have called a better end game……even Canine Weapon could have called it better at the end.

          AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH…..but who the hell am I on football….My Longhorns let TCU beat them….2 weeks ago……..sigh.

  8. Happy Veteran’s Day!!!!!

  9. Happy Veteran’s Day to all……

  10. Thank you for your service! Happy Veteran’s Day!

    Jose Narosky
    “In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.”

  11. SNOW. That’s all I know. Sure is purdy to see for the first time this year. But what happened to the ease into it stage? I just mowed grass last week and got the water hose in. Now I have to dig deep for the shovels already. 3 inches on the ground , headed for 4 – 6.

    • Wishing you the best and hope it’s nothing serious. It could be some Libetalism that leaked out the wrong place 😀

      You will NOT outlive me 😛

      • Wishing you the best and hope it’s nothing serious.

        Thanks.

        I’m not overly worried at this point.. well, not about the tumor.. this is going to be a huge headache and probably cost a small fortune before it’s done. That, and my wife freaking out.

        It could be some Libetalism that leaked out the wrong place 😀

        That usually results in ass-cancer.

        You will NOT outlive me 😛

        I’ve already taken out a contract to ensure that I do. Make-a-Wish was very helpful and understanding. Apparently this kind of request happens all the time and they keep someone on retainer for it.

    • This will be our second snowfall this fall. A bit chilly though.

  12. Impeach Quid Pro Joe

  13. Have a good Veteran’s day everyone. And stay warm!

  14. So, apparently, I have a have a tumor in my neck.

    Won’t know more until the biopsy / CT later this week.

    But I do know one thing, and I know it for absolute certain: Whatever it takes, I will not let Gman outlive me.

    • Whoa! Not cool. Good luck and prayers and best wishes for you from Michigan.

      • Don’t worry about me. Worry about Gman.

        ::ominous knuckle cracking::

        • Can I take the word little, literally? The fact they are ready to do surgery immediately probably makes that answer yes, which is very good news.

          • 1.5 cm.. is that “little”? I have no idea. I’ve got a lot of learning to do over the next few days. Things are moving very quickly and I generally like to know all the important facts before I let people jab me with needles and cut into my face and neck.

            That sure sounds little to me.. in my stomach it’d be tiny… in my brain, not so much. In my neck..? Who knows.. it’s right in the TMJ, where the mandible (jawbone) connects to the skull. There are some important nerves in that area that I’d rather not mess with, so “little” is a very relative concept. ::shrug::

            We’ll know more when we know more, and I’ll be sure to keep you all apprised of the situation. Hopefully it turns out to be very minor. Hopefully, that is, for Gman’s sake.

    • Oh man….that is sobering news! Please know you have prayers, good vibes, juju, whatever positive I can send your way from Texas…and hope it turns out totally benign.

      • Thanks, Murf… no need to sweat it just yet.

        I’ve named my little tumor Alfred. He is tentatively scheduled for eviction later this week or early next week, pending the results of the ct / biopsy. I would feel a little more comfortable if the doctor didn’t seem to think it’s important move so fast. But I know she’s concerned about Alfred making friends, so the sooner he’s gone, the better.

        Right now, I’m not overly worried about Alfred so much as what it’s going to cost to get rid of him. These things tend to be unpleasantly expensive. I’m going to speak to my boss about signing up the firm for Aflac, which would cover me despite pre-existing conditions (I think) and help pay off all those side-costs and co-pays and gaps. Maybe… got a lot more homework to do.. I just got back from the doctor an hour ago, so you know about as much as I do at this point. ::shrug::

        On the plus side, my BP was 117/66 minutes after receiving a preliminary cancer diagnosis, so that’s pretty cool, right? Doc did a double-take at that one.

        Ooh, does this mean I get to put cancer stickers on my car and get sanctimonious about being a “survivor”? What color ribbon is face/neck cancer? I’ve always wanted an unassailable victimhood high-horse I could get use…

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Good luck!

        • Good luck, Mathius! Sending good vibes your way, but you’ve got this.

          You and Gman will still be here arguing for at least another twenty years!

        • Hmmmmm….If I were to say good luck and sending good vibes, Mathius might think something was up……but…..from a Texas stand point…….I do wish you the very best and remember, I keep my K bar sharp at all times and can get rid of your issue with one “swoosh”…well, maybe two “swoosh’s”….my method would be a little draconian but the issue would be solved. However, my friend…..I do wish you the Texas best.

          • Is the “issue” you’re referring to my assurance that I’ll outlive Gman? If so, I’ll gladly accept your assistance.

            No way am I going down without living long enough to ensure that he is buried with a copy of the collective works of John Maynard Keynes.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Sorry to hear about your situation. Good luck and warm wishes of good health from our house to yours.

          • Thanks, JAC,

            No worries just yet. Right now, the odds are better that my wife will murder me for failing to clear out the garage so she can park inside before it snows.

  15. To all veterans today…thank you for the sacrifices you made from the day you swore your oath to serve until the day you were discharged…and thank you for my freedom. I know it was not free!

    Murf

  16. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Last week, in a story that went away so fast it made your head spin, IT was revealed that the Ozone Hole over the South Pole has closed, all by itself! This is contrary to “Scientific” pronouncements of 30 years back saying it was “gone forever”. Gonna go out to the garage and pop open a can of 25 year old CFC refrigerant!

    • I don’t know where you got “all by itself” from. For starters, we banned CFC’s (nearly) globally.

      Also, not for nothing, the hole absolutely has not “closed.” I has shrunk. It isn’t projected to reach the size it was in the 80’s for another several decades.

      ——————-

      Fun fact: the same guy who invented CFCs is the same guy who invented leaded gasoline.

      Fun fact #2: he was well aware that lead was dangerous and never went near the stuff except when it was necessary to give demonstrations to the press which he did by sniffing leaded gas and washing his hands in it. It is suspected by some that he secretly swapped out the samples for unleaded.

      Fun fact #3: he later contracted Polio, leading to the loss of his mobility. He invented a rather complicated system of levers and pulleys in order to be able to flip over in bed or raise himself up.

      Fun fact #4: he died when the contraption malfunctioned and he wound up strangling himself.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Re-read where it could NEVER replenish itself because of how ozone was supposedly formed. Best we “tried” for was to prevent further shrinkage. Look it up!

        This is CROCKOFSHIT science.

        • SKT,

          Seriously man.

          Science changes and improves all the time.

          You have to stop acting as if “it was wrong back then” means the current understanding is necessarily wrong.

          Science is nothing more than the best educated understanding at the moment.

          There was a time when people thought disease was caused by humors. Malaria literally means “bad air” because the original thinking was that the humors of the air caused it. To treat this, they put the legs of hospital beds in small bowls because the water humors would somehow cancel out the bad air humors or something. Of course, mosquitoes love standing water, so.. not good. But your logic would say that “they said it was humors then, so saying it’s these newfangled ‘germs’ is just more crock-of-shit science!”

          Science isn’t perfect. It isn’t all-knowing. The fact that we talk about climate “models” – with an ‘s’ – tells you we don’t know-know the answers. If we were certain enough, there’s be a single model.. the model.

          They’re just trying to figure things out. Sure, it can be alarmist and sensationalized. But “back then” computers were barely a thing. My iPhone has orders of magnitude more processing power than the collective power of all computers on Earth in 1980. Our models are much better now, more robust, more complete.

          But they still aren’t perfect.

          Thirty years from now, people are going to look back and shake their heads at what we think today.

          And that’s fine.

          But it doesn’t mean that the science of today should just be rejected because it was wrong in ye olden tymes. We just have to operate on the best current understanding available.

  17. Any thoughts on Trump’s settlement for $2mm for misuse of charity funds he raised for veterans which was used, amongst other things, to buy a portrait of himself and support his campaign?

    According to the judgment, that money “was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation.”

    Bear in mind that $2mm is a penalty for the abuse / misuse of the funds. The fundraiser raised $2.8mm which was eventually paid to the charity pursuant to earlier court orders.

    It seems to me that raising money for veterans and then using it to support your campaign should be considered particularly repugnant by the denizens of this site.

    NOW, to be fair, Trump’s “admission” was only to insufficient supervision of the organization. He did not admit to personal involvement in the misuse.

    • He can afford it and hopefully fired some people.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      YES, I find it repugnant. I also find it to be evidence of great ignorance.

    • If this is, indeed, what happened then I find it repugnant if he had a personal hand in it…..but I would assume plausible deniability would be involved here…….

      If it happened on his watch….and he made restitution for it with a penalty….I would be satisfied. BUT……. BUT if he deliberately used this money for campaign issues…..I would consider this an affront….however, as Mathius so methodically puts it….it is not enough for me to change my vote……I would do the Mathius thing and hold my nose as I pulled the lever…..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        Good morning Sir. The problem that you and I have in particular, and many Americans have in general is the lack of forethought and courage among Republicans. If those two ingredients were present there would be a good candidate running against Mr. Trump.

        So God tested me with his sick sense of humor last time and I kept my sacred oath. If Hillary happens to be the opponent I will keep it again. But if it is anyone else I will probably have to write in a name that is not on the ballot. Of course being as there is no chance in hell of a Democrat winning the POTUS race in Idaho, it is a cheap gesture on my part. But it will make me feel good and give me righteous status against those “folks” from the right and left coast.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Time for me to pull a you……. seems the actual story is not quite the same as the one you posted. This is the same issue that arose during the 2016 election. The supposed campaign gain, per this report, is the fact that Trump got a benefit from the charity’s actions, which was done by his campaign people. The other charges were also against NY and I will add Federal rules for not for profit companies.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/trump-foundation-saga-troubled-charity-ends-2-million-judgment/2532798001/

      I still don’t like it and even more than before, I find it stupid.

      P.S.: Not to rationalize this act but to explain how this came to pass….you can thank Al Gore and the Clinton’s for this. It might go back farther but they put the idea on steroids.

      • Time for me to pull a you……

        HOW DARE YOU!

        That’s cultural appropriation!

        I’ll have you drawn and quartered for this..

        seems the actual story is not quite the same as the one you posted.

        Quite possibly. I’m new to the story.

        ::searching::

        ::reading::

        It seems that what you’re referring to is a piece. Perhaps the bulk.

        Charities are barred by law from advancing the self-interests of their executives. So it would seem to be illegal for Trump to use a “charity” in this manner. I’m sure some people will argue that it’s yet another harmless innocent coincidence, but you probably aren’t among them… the Trump charity, using Trump staffers, under control of Trump and sons directing days ahead of the Iowa caucus… naw. That’s a political stunt designed to help Trump’s campaign. (note, that doesn’t make it a “bad thing” that he raised 2.8mm for vets.. that’s good. But, just as a thing can be awful but lawful, a thing can be generally good, but done illegally). Blah blah blah.. whatever.

        Anyway.. ah here we go… “The president also admitted to using the foundation to settle the legal obligations of companies he owned, including Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida, and the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y. And he acknowledged that the foundation purchased the $10,000 portrait of Mr. Trump, which was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.”

        Not to rationalize this act but to explain how this came to pass….you can thank Al Gore and the Clinton’s for this.

        Not a chance in hell.

        Lock ’em all up for all I care. Just don’t give Trump special treatment. Likewise, don’t give Clinton special treatment. Or Gore.

        The only one who should get special treatment is me.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Great little half truth there. The funds were used to bid on a portrait where the proceeds of the auction were going to charity. You and Mr. Schiff must be blood brothers under the skin.

      Try not to fool people Matt. And, while you are at it, check just what the NY AG wanted as a penalty for this horrible crime, not what came down from the court.

      Now, just for shits and giggles, how you like the fact that the unindicted Clinton Foundation used proceeds for living expenses? And please do NOT give me this crap of “citation needed” look it up yourself! I can’t do ALL your homework!

      • Great little half truth there. The funds were used to bid on a portrait where the proceeds of the auction were going to charity. You and Mr. Schiff must be blood brothers under the skin.

        Can you maybe clarify this?

        I can see in the order that Trump was ordered to repay $11,500 for the painting.

        I saw in various reporting that the painting wound up in his Florida hotel.

        So… I’m unclear what the actual story is as you see it. Who paid what for what and who got the painting and why was Trump ultimately required to pay 11.5k?

        Try not to fool people Matt.

        I think you’re implying bad intent on my part and I resent it. I am trying to figure out all the details here and have been clear elsewhere and I’m not fully versed in the story.

        And, while you are at it, check just what the NY AG wanted as a penalty for this horrible crime, not what came down from the court.

        He wanted 2.8mm and got 2mm, no?

        Who cares what he wanted? They always aim for the moon.

        how you like the fact that the unindicted Clinton Foundation used proceeds for living expenses?

        If that’s true, I don’t like it at all.

        Try them, convict them, fine them accordingly.

        I don’t care. If they’re breaking the law, then they’re breaking the law and should be punished accordingly.

        Same for Trump, same for Biden, same for Gore, same for you.

        And please do NOT give me this crap of “citation needed” look it up yourself!

        I also have a full-time job, you know.. we can’t all be retired.

        I can’t do ALL your homework!

        ::Citation required::

  18. SCOTUS is hearing the DACA case. DACA is based on an Obama EO. I’m not even sure why this has made it to SCOTUS, as EO’s expire at the end of a Presidency, EO’s are NOT law and Trump issued an EO rescinding Obama’s DACA EO.

    Thoughts?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      EO’s do not expire at the end of a presidency. Unless specifically moon lighted they continue on until rescinded or amended.

    • It is going to the SCOTUS because it was weaponized in a District court.

    • as EO’s expire at the end of a Presidency

      I don’t believe this is true.

      I believe they stay in effect until they are killed by a future President unless it has some other built-in termination trigger.

      EO’s are NOT law and Trump issued an EO rescinding Obama’s DACA EO.

      That which can be created by fiat can be destroyed by fiat.

      EO’s are NOT law and Trump issued an EO rescinding Obama’s DACA EO.

      Seems reasonable… but there’s a catch.

      (NOTE: This is MY objection, not the legal case)

      And it’s rooted in contract law.

      Here’s the thing. Millions of illegal immigrants signed up for DACA. They exposed themselves. They came out of hiding in order to sign up for this thing.

      That’s a “quid” on their side.

      The government, in exchange, offered immunity from deportation (terms and conditions apply).

      That’s a “quo.”

      And, with that, we have a contract:
      1. A valid offer.
      2. A valid acceptance.
      3. Consideration freely given and accepted by both parties.
      4. Full understanding of the agreement by both parties. (“competency”)
      5. “Legal intent” which is to say that this isn’t a casual agreement, but something binding.

      That’s a contract.

      The “dreamers” cannot withdraw back into hiding. The government now knows who they are and has a list. To pull the rug on them means breaking the deal – keeping the quid and withholding the quo.

      That’s just not right.

      You cannot break a contract without making the other party whole (unless stipulated in the contract).

      In this case, it’s like I sold you my house, you moved in, lived there for a few years, then I came back one day, kicked all your stuff to the curb, kept the money, and insisted that it’s my house again and told to get lost. Clearly, something is amiss here. You’d be justified in going to the courts and insisting that I comply (“specific performance”) with the terms of our contract because breaking it – especially on these terms – would do me irreparable harm.

      (Here’s the legal case, NOT my opinion)

      The law requires that administrative policies like this not be arbitrary and capricious.

      Now, of course, “capricious” is Trump’s middle name.

      But that’s neither here nor there. The lower courts have given Team Trump several opportunities to justify their decision and the justification seems to be some variation of “to send a message” or “because we said we would in the campaign.”

      The lower courts have rejected these rationals – inserting their opinions that these just aren’t sufficient justification for overturning a major and successful policy.

      And, to that, I say bullcrap.

      Look, I happen to agree that the justification is bullshit, but that doesn’t give the courts the right to substitute their judgement for that of the President.

      If he has to have a non-arbitrary and non-capricious reason for doing thing (seems reasonable), his political calculus alone should be sufficient. He didn’t just wake up one morning and decide this – it has been a tent-pole of his policy since the beginning and is widely supported by broad swaths of his base and in his supporters in the media and in Congress. This is a policy he stands for, and this EO is a prominent feature of that policy. There is nothing “arbitrary” or “capricious” about it.

      “Assholic”? Sure. “Wrong”? Sure. “Arbitrary and capricious”? No.

      That I happen to think it’s BAD policy is just too bad for me.

      That the lower courts happen to think this is just too bad for them.

      The law doesn’t give them the power to countermand “bad” policy or “stupid” policy. It gives them the power to countermand “arbitrary and capricious” policy/orders. And this EO just doesn’t fit that bill. At least, not in my opinion.

      THAT SAID, I am not fully versed in the pertinent law and all the arguments being made, so maybe I missed something. Rather, I’m sure I missed plenty. But given my current understanding, JUSTICE Mathius would have to let Trump do what he wants based on the arguments being presented.

      However, JUSTICE Mathius, would be far more amenable to the contract law based argument above.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You have identified the problem and it is a very big one. It has been used to strike down new Administration efforts to fix things for as long as I have been in the business of knowing this stuff. Which dates back to Carter.

        As it has happened, a Democrat POTUS issues new orders based on his promises to constituents. This is usually supported by some flimsy arguments developed by those who want the order or new regulation. Then a Republican POTUS comes along and tries to undo it or change it. They present their arguments. They a Judge almost always claims the new argument for undoing it is not adequate. That it is arbitrary. Of course there is no such ruling for the first decision, because they are usually on the same side politically.

        The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is one of the things that turned my attitude towards the courts sour. Judges started making themselves the arbiters of truth in arenas for which they have no training or experience. They just started siding with special interest groups against Govt. experts.

        • Of course there is no such ruling for the first decision, because they are usually on the same side politically.

          I find this assertion objectionable.

          When suing the administration to stop a policy (whether prevent the implementation or the termination), the parties always sue in friendly jurisdiction. A Republican can usually be assured of a conservative judge and likewise a Democrat can get their case heard by a liberal.

          The judiciary is NOT overwhelmingly liberal to the point where the left gets the kind of advantage you describe.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Your argument is not supported by history. And I did say my opinion was based on my experience. Which is primarily in the West, which means left leaning District judges and the 9th Circuit. But there were some decisions in the eastern Circuits which followed the same lines.

            One of the most egregious decisions by a District Judge was back east. HE decided that the National Environmental Policy Act required an Environmental Impact Statement for the cutting of a single tree. This self proclaimed expertise on what constitutes “significant impact to the human environment” cost taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars in unnecessary paperwork process. This and other decisions combined to create the forest health hazards we have today, along with killing off thousands of timber jobs in the west.

            Now, will this change? It might given the number of judges now appointed by Republicans since 2000. But this number was tempered by those appointed by Obama since that time.

            • Your argument is not supported by history.

              Maybe. I’m always open to being shown I’m wrong. Can you maybe point me at some reputable and impartial analysis?

              And I did say my opinion was based on my experience.

              Fair enough.

              One of the most egregious decisions by a District Judge was back east.

              Some people are nuts….

              That said, that sure sounds like a poorly written law if it could be interpreted that way.. seriously, who says something like “significant impact” and doesn’t think they need to elaborate on what that means?

              But this number was tempered by those appointed by Obama since that time.

              I seem to recall that Obama was blocked form a huge number of his appointments by the Republicans. Wouldn’t all those have reverted to Trump?

              Not the least of which was a Supreme Court nominee in his final year.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I gave you my impartial analysis.

                When Congress passed the law (NEPA) they did include language that provided guidelines. Including some wording about how the cost of the analysis and funding levels in general should be considered in deciding how much to analyze. But you see the judges who were on the green side undermined those sideboards. Eventually flat out dismissing them. Each decision led to more new decision with even more “requirements”, until we get to where we are today. A law, created by the courts, that has no resemblance to the law passed by Congress. And a Congress that is so partisan and owing to special interests, that it refuses to fix the problem.

                And here is the prime evidence they were politically supportive. When the Dem/Green judges created the mess, the Democrats in Congress ignored it when in power, and stopped every effort to fix it when in the minority.

                Yes, many of Obama’s appointments were blocked. Not sure if it was more than Bush II got blocked by the D’s but it was a good number. But it was not all judges so he did get many appointed. Ironically, some of the most damaging appointments were approved by a R Senate when Clinton was POTUS. Back when “conservatives” were more about following traditions than they are today.

                Note that I said Obama’s appointments “tempered” the newer trend. I did not say it changed the whole picture. Until the McConnell revolt against the Obama SCOTUS pick, I cannot remember a SCOTUS pick undermined by the R’s when made by a D. But there were several R appointments killed by the D’s. The biggest one being Bork, which I still think is a turning point in the political war and games that have erupted over SCOTUS appointments.

      • Did you just argue that Obama entered into an unbreakable, unending contract, which allows an illegal action, through the use of a temporary EO? That sounds more like Obama writing law, all by hisself.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Yes, we call this a DICTATORSHIP! Unless of course Obama would prefer to be addressed as Emperor!

          • SKT,

            The government says to you: “pay $100k today and you will be exempt from all future federal taxes.” You pay the $100k and get no taxes for the next few years. Great! Then the next President is sworn in and says “screw that” and cancels the policy, but keeps your initial payment. Has the government done something “wrong”?

            Would you say it’s “wrong” for the government to solicit a thing of value from you in exchange for a thing of value in return, but then renege on their side of the deal when the next President is sworn in, while keeping the thing you gave them?

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              If the by the “government” you mean an executive order done perhaps at the whim of a temporary executive I would NOT. This is much like the words of a certain elder Bush who said , “read my lips, no new taxes”.

              There is a Constitution in this country much to the dismay apparently of the editors of “Harpers” and “The Atlantic” and it specifies how permanent law is to be made.

              “Caesar” has not yet declared himself a God, though I’m not that sure of his predecessor!

        • Maybe.

          I would look at MY argument and infer that, for those who signed up, the government made a deal: you come out of hiding, we will not deport you.

          To pull the rug on that would require “making them whole” and I have no idea how to do that other than to leave the deal in place.

          Maybe they could say the DACA enrollment lists/data are prohibited from use by law enforcement / legal proceedings, and give them a 6 month grace period… something like that, maybe?

          But to just “keep” the quid while withdrawing the quo is not ok.

          THAT SAID, it would seem to me that Trump is completely in his rights to prevent further enrollment, to limit any growth or increase in the program, etc.

      • contract law based argument above. That is thinner than piss on a plate.

        • Well then it’s a good thing no one is making that argument to the court of Justice Mathius.. ’cause he’s rule in Trump’s favor based on the current arguments.

          I’ll ask you, though, colonel… these people trusted the government’s word. They came out of hiding, put their name and information into a database. Is it “RIGHT” that that government should then be able to turn around, keep that data to use against them, and withdraw the benefit it had offered in exchange?

          Not “it is legal” or “does POTUS have that power” or blah blah blah. Is it “right.” Have they been given a square shake if the government does this?

          • Have they been given a square shake if the government does this?

            The government DIDN’T do anything. One man who chose to overstep his legal authority did.

            For the record, if these people are working and have followed all the rules, I see no reason to round them up.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            There was no contract inferring long term protection. The Govt, via POTUS, created a benefit……….. PRIVILEGE………. that had a two year limit. Each 2 yrs they have to reapply. This is pretty much a guarantee that at some point their requests will be denied.

            Otherwise you raise a valid point about promises made and broken. OUR Govt. should honor its promises. But a policy created via EO by one person is really not our Govt. making a promise. It was a political stunt used to box in the R’s and D’s so they couldn’t keep DACA in limbo.

            The real irony in this is that Mr. Trump offered to make them all Legal Resident Aliens with a path to citizenship……… if the Dems would get on board with funding the wall and more comprehensive reforms. The same reforms they said they wanted.

            • The real irony in this is that Mr. Trump offered to make them all Legal Resident Aliens with a path to citizenship……… if the Dems would get on board with funding the wall and more comprehensive reforms. The same reforms they said they wanted.

              Jesus.. they’re all just such a bunch of juvenile assholes… how the hell are we ruled by these people?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Ummmmmmmmmmm because WE keep voting for them because we are willing to vote for an ax murderer if they are at least aligned with our politics.

      • Justice Mathius should consider “authority” to engage in such activity by the POTUS. There is no Constitutional authority to engage in a contractual agreement with foreigners, without the consent of Congress. But, you tried 🙂

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    We are one of the last refuges, but now it is destroying the very thing they came to enjoy. The GROWTH problem is not limited to Boise. Comments are also very interesting.

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-10/go-back-to-california-wave-of-newcomers-fuels-backlash-in-boise

    • Yep….welcome to the world of transplants. The same highway that brought them there works two ways. They come into our neighborhood and we all have nicely watered lawns and maintained flower beds. Californians are not used to using water to beautify their homes and they complain when the HOA sends them a letter telling them to abide by the covenants or face liens. The big city folks that come from there do not understand the meaning of being friendly. I guess they do not wave to each other in California. Anyway…..welcome to the world of transplants. New York City will not have this problem….

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        When I moved here I was flat out told I might be a resident but would never be considered a native of Idaho. No matter how long I lived here. I was complimented though by the old timers for not trying to change things. Of course back then my native State and Idaho were very similar in culture and politics, so there wasn’t much to even desire to change.

        Well except maybe the prohibition of selling beer on Sundays, and the bars closing at 1 am. I did find that irritating at the time. And I still don’t like the liquor license process. It was corrupt and remains corrupt. It prevents freedom of commerce and restricts competition. A hold over from when the Mormons completely controlled the legislature.

    • It has to do how the gun was marketed, NOT the gun itself.

      Up next: The auto industry. Hollywood will be targeted. The gaming industry. Politicians. Drug manufacturers.

      • Seems to me that the gun worked as designed. Congress has passed a law saying you can’t sue the manufacturer. Freedom of speech gives them the ability to advertise (within limits)…. where’s the beef?

        • Reading the article, targeted ad’s. I think it’s weak as hell, because the claim is that the company targeted kids through video games, except the shooter was not a kid. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

          • Sounds like grasping at straws.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Yet the lower court, not politically aligned or anything, allowed it to move forward instead of dismissing it. Many of us sounded the alarm when the tobacco lawsuits resulted in major blackmail fees being paid to govt. selected entities.

              Remember, this same strategy is currently playing out in lawsuits against Oil Companies for conspiring to harm the environment,, by hiding global warming information.

              • I think there might be a difference in that tobacco knew cigarettes were carcinogenic for decades and actively worked to hide the fact while still trying to get people to become addicted.

                Likewise, it seems, Big Oil has been aware of their affects on the environment for a long time and hid the fact.

                This would make them bad actors by any reasonable standard.

                But gun manufacturers sell, you know, guns. The stated purpose of a gun is to launch projectiles which make holes in things. Sometimes those things are other people.

                That’s it. That’s what they do. They are, as they say, exactly what it says on the tin.

                So if they have legislation which says they’re immune, then I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be immune.

                THAT SAID, there’s a lot I don’t know about this case and the pertinent law, so I’m probably missing something.

              • Likewise, it seems, Big Oil has been aware of their affects on the environment for a long time and hid the fact.

                I hope this is about Climate Change. Because ANY company that puts out any pollution at all could then be sued for hurting the environment. I swear that the enviro-nuts want us to live back in the Stone Age again.

              • I was living in the stone age a couple of weeks ago.

              • Things were awesome in the stone age.. right up you died at the ripe old age of 23.

  20. Canine Weapon says:

  21. Canine Weapon says:

    (2nd attempt)

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I think if you placed a copy of Keynes’ work even close to Black Flag it would burst into flames. Kind of like those demons on Super Natural.

    • Who is to say whether the book would burst into flames or he would?

      Either way, I could ship a bunch to his house underground bunker and present a huge fire hazard. That’s be worth it.

  23. NEW YORK, NY—The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has announced a new category for its 2020 awards show: “Best Covering for a Pedophile.”

    ABC News and CBS News are favorites for the award, with CNN in a close third. The former two nominees covered up a huge news story that could have brought down Jeffrey Epstein and fired the woman who leaked audio of the story being discussed, while CNN has been reluctant to report on the cover-up carried out by the station’s peers.
    “We want to recognize those television news stations that bravely get information that could bring down a rich and powerful pedophile and then hide that information from the public,” said a NATAS spokesperson. “News reporting is a vital part of ensuring criminals get away with exploiting people, as long as those criminals are our friends.”
    “Democracy dies when the people are informed,” he added.
    NATAS admits it’s going to be tough to pick a winner and suspects that there will be dozens of nominees in this particular category by the time Fall 2020 comes around.

  24. Canine Weapon says:

    Best thing to ever happen at a Cowboys game…

  25. The Schiff Circus has begun.

  26. You have to love the due process……Shit head did not allow one single republican defense witness and he will shut off the mic of any question he does not like in cross examination.

    Mathius’ worst nightmare…..Donald Trump winning a second term.
    Mathius’ second worst nightmare…..Hillary Clinton running again.

    • UK—In an interview with the BBC, Hillary Clinton said she is being urged to run for president in 2020 by “many, many, many” voices in her head.

      “I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many voices in my head to think about it,” she said. She went on, elaborating on all the voices that echo inside her head all day long. “There’s Bob—he’s nice. And Carl, he’s a swell guy, very supportive. Then there’s this voice that sounds like Christopher Walken. He’s kind of a jerk sometimes, but even he’s on board with me running again.”
      Pressed for a solid figure, she said there’s “at least a few thousand” of these voices that want her to run, and she promised to think about it in order to appease the voices. Clinton also said the voices have told her she’s done a great job as president in her first term and they “can’t wait” to see how much she can accomplish for the country should she be elected a second time.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Wanted to comment on the article about Boise, Idaho vs. California migration that I posted yesterday. It is a commentary that shows how BIAS seeps into media reporting.

    In the article the author makes a connection between Minimum Wage in Idaho and housing affordability. Making a point that Idaho has a min. wage of about $7.50 per hour. But here is the thing. Almost nobody is paying minimum wages right now. McDonald’s has signs out offering $10 for starting positions. Other low wage employers in fast food are advertising $12 per hour. Just like happened during the last boom, wages go up when labor gets short.

    The difference here is that when things get bad, we allow wages to drop back down, to the minimum of course.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      The difference here is that when things get bad, we allow wages to drop back down, to the minimum of course.

      Why even have a minimum? Why not let the Free Market take care of it all?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        EXACTLY

        Because of the FEDERAL GOVT, which your alter ego so readily supports.

        Have you explained to him yet why it is that we have morons running Congress?? I tried last night but I don’t think he quite understood.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Because of the FEDERAL GOVT,

          … which I do not recognize …

          which your alter ego so readily supports.

          That’s because he’s an idiot.

          which your alter ego so readily supports.

          Wait, what? I don’t have an alter ego. I am a sovereign entity. Our similar names are just a coincidence. I live on the high seas and am ancient as the sea itself. I have a flowing beard and Mathius can’t grow more than shaggy stubble. He doesn’t even have a peg leg OR a parrot!

          Have you explained to him yet why it is that we have morons running Congress?? I tried last night but I don’t think he quite understood.

          That’s because ………………………….

          …………………………. he’s an idiot.

  28. So far, I’m still waiting for some sort of crime to be spoken of. Just Taylor’s opinion based on second and third hand info.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Well, if you listen to the radio news reports, these two early witnesses have already proved he did it!

      Quick question to all you “tuned in” folks because you all are. Did anyone else catch the report last week that the Ozone Hole had closed?

      I’ve talked to a few fairly sharp and tuned in friends and they missed it. I assume it is the equivalent of 36 consecutive front page stories about Trump colluding with Putin as his bought and paid for puppet then finally a single page 37 story, two paragraphs saying….well nothing has been linked…….(but we still believe it).

      • Did anyone else catch the report last week that the Ozone Hole had closed?

        It didn’t close.

        It shrank.

        It’s still there.

        And it’ll be there for quite a while.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          It cannot shrink. I’ve been told that by noted crapscientests for over 40 years now!

          Question, did you go looking for it or did it come across to you on a news feed or something?

          • It cannot shrink.

            Evidently it can.

            I’ve been told that by noted crapscientests for over 40 years now!

            Yes. Scientists back then with primitive tools and basic understanding were wrong, so they must always and henceforth be wrong.

            Question, did you go looking for it or did it come across to you on a news feed or something?

            I saw nothing. I went looking after you made this claim the other day.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              You have committed a logical fallacy. They were wrong then and incapable of being wrong now? Why? They have some new doo-dads which will be outmoded in five years? Hope you are just funnin me otherwise I have to worry about your premature senility.

              • They were wrong then and incapable of being wrong now? Why?

                This is not what I said.

                They absolutely can be wrong now.

                They almost certainly ARE wrong to some extent and on some of the details.

                They MAY be completely wrong.

                But the preponderance of the evidence is what scientific consensus is built upon. That they were wrong then does not change the fact that the most likely answer given what we currently know is the one which scientists currently believe.

                What you are doing is saying “they were wrong then, so we can never trust them. Therefore if they say X, then the right answer is Not X.”

                What I am saying is “the most likely answer is the current scientific consensus, but it could still be wrong.”

                They have some new doo-dads which will be outmoded in five years?

                You can’t use hindsight as a way of evaluating the present. The best answers aren’t what some future scientist might know. We don’t have access to that information. The best answer is whatever the best information says now.

                I am betting an a dice roll. I bet that it will not be a 1. The best information I have is that the odds of my winning are 5:1. So I place my bet. It comes up 1. Shit. I lost. Does that mean my bet was a bad bet? Of course not. It was simply the best information available at the time.

                Hope you are just funnin me otherwise I have to worry about your premature senility.

                Well, likewise, I’m worried about your grasp of the very concept of science.

                But, unlike me, you actually are old and senile. 🙂

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              So, front page above teh fold, causing teh world to totally change how it refrigerates and the “retraction” is now printed on page 47 of the late afternoon friday edition. Guts, those newspeople and crapscientests have real guts.

  29. Canine Weapon says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen and assorted animals of SUFA.

    I present you now with something which has shocked me to my very core.

    I know that some amongst you will deny it. Insist that it cannot be so. Call me a liar, or worse.

    I understand, my friends, how you feel, for I feel it as well. But the simple empirical fact of the matter cannot be denied any longer. The evidence is beyond reproach:

    Mathius DOES have a brain!

  30. WASHINGTON, D.C.—Rep. Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee called on their first star witness to prove that Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors: Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg.

    “Ms. Thunberg, thank you for being here today,” Schiff began but was immediately interrupted by the girl:
    “How dare you!” she shouted.
    “Oh, heh, um… I’m on your side, here, let’s take it easy,” Schiff continued awkwardly. “What information do you have on Donald Trump and his blatant corruption when it comes to his phone call with Ukraine?”
    “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood!” she shouted, pounding the table in front of her. The crowd began to get emotional, weeping and shouting and screaming at the sky all at once. “This is all wrong! I shouldn’t be here. I should be back in school!”
    Even Schiff himself shed a few tears and led the committee in a standing ovation for Thunberg’s bravery. “I think we’ve heard enough. I declare Donald Trump impeached!” Sadly, Schiff was later informed that he couldn’t simply declare impeachment.
    Thunberg concluded her testimony by shouting, “PEOPLE ARE DYING!” to thunderous applause.
    The committee is now expected to call on other star witnesses like Alyssa Milano, Jane Fonda, and Debra Messing.

    • LMAO Schiff just contradicted his own witness about the Quid Pro Quo (which has been totally debunked, including today’s revelations).

      • If the Crats were wanting the first witnesses to prove something, he failed miserably. But don’t fret Mathius, the liberal media will tell you the total opposite.

  31. When does this stop? Changing the lyrics of classic songs from the 40s and 50s…..that is bad enough,,,,,,now, Disney movies such as Dumbo, The Aristocats, Lady and the Tramo, The Jungle Book, and the Oscar winning “Song of the South” because of its song Zip a Dee Do Dah are all being targeted for ……get ready for it…….outdated cultural depictions. Even the old Shirley Temple movies are being targeted because of black face and Irving Berlins, White Christmas……not to be left out is the Christmas song Little Drummer Boy, Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman……all are to be required to carry “sensitive warnings” for outdated cultural depictions…………

    And the Snow Flakes keep on falling………………………………

    • Even the old Shirley Temple

      There was a time when my younger daughter had outrageous curls and this amazing golden-blonde hair… So.. of course, I taught her to sing Animal Crackers and do a little dance, and I recorded it… because, of course I did. Oh, it was a amazing.

      AND NOBODY GOT THE REFERENCE!

      Nobody had any idea who Shirley Temple was beyond “some old child actor.”

      ::ugh::

      The world’s goin’ straight to hell, I tell ya.

  32. Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump’s call and President Zelensky’s call?
    Taylor: I did not.
    Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff [Mick] Mulvaney?
    Taylor: I never did.
    Jordan: You’ve never met the president?
    Taylor: That’s correct.

    Taylor confirmed that he had three meetings with Zelensky following Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president and at no time did the issue of any linkage to U.S. aid being released in exchange for an announcement of anti-corruption investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden or anyone else ever come up.

    “I don’t consider myself a star witness for anything,” Taylor responded. “I’m not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcomes.”
    “My understanding is only coming from people that I talked to.”

    It’s the Official Hearsay Impeachment 😛

    Man arrested for slicing Baby Trump balloon at protest. Tells cops ” First time Liberals ever got pissed over slicing up a baby”. 😛

    Is Jeffrey Epstein dead or part of the Witness Protection Program?

    • With witnesses like this, I’m not sure if the Crats aren’t trying to totally throw the next election.

      • Trump should have a rally in DC, right outside the Senate building. Flood the zone with millions of MAGA supporters…give the Senate something to think about as the circus gets going in their chamber.

        • Translated: make the jury” scared for their jobs, so that they vote the way I want them to vote.

          Did I get that right?

          • Yes, yes you got it right! They should be scared for their jobs every single day. You can’t play dumb on this Mathius. We might not know it all, but we know enough to know that its a scam. You know that the Ukraine has been corrupt since forever. You know that big names are involved. You know the swamp protects itself. They should be scared. A million Americans on their lawn would send a huge message.

            I’ve been of the ‘shut it all down’ mindset. I’m beginning to think ‘let’s do this’ in the Senate…just to get it all out there and on record. Problem is, I don’t trust the career Rs to present the right case and vote for the correct verdict over the ‘protect ourselves’ verdict.

          • Yes, you got it right and………………in the past, you have supported this.

            • Yes, you got it right and………………in the past, you have supported this.

              I have?

              I don’t think I have.

              But what do I know?

              I’m pretty sure I have ALWAYS opined that trials should be fair and impartial.

              Even ones for Trump.

              • Actually, I lumped this in the same thing as protests or boycotts….you have advocated that they are effective and totally ok……..it would be a great protest to the Senate if millions showed up and with signs or a letter writing campaign…..which, if this does go to the Senate, my veterans group is ready to write to the Senators.

    • Seems weird..

      First of all, a judge absolutely cannot order a guilty verdict in a jury trial. He cannot. Full stop.

      A judge can override a guilty verdict with a non-guilty summary judgement. But never the other way around.

      What it seems he has done is instruct the jury to find guilt… because only the jury can do so. And, while I’m not a lawyer, that sure feels like handing the guy a free appeal.

      “I have already determined that these defendants trespassed at each of these locations. Because I determined that these defendants trespassed, the law assumes that Planned Parenthood has been harmed and is entitled to an award of nominal damages such as one dollar for each trespass,”

      That seems wrong to me.

      A judge can inform the jury of the law, and remind them of relevant facts in evidence. But he cannot “determine that they did anything.” That’s not his job. He is emphatically NOT the “finder of fact. That is the job of the jury, so he is effectively trying to do their job for them.

      And it is wrong, because it’s not the whole story.

      BECAUSE the defense’ case wasn’t “we didn’t do it,” but rather “we did, but it’s ok because…”

      Defense closing arguments: “[the case is] about the steps it took for private citizen investigators to cut through a curtain of silence and concealment.

      They didn’t do it for profit or for personal gain. They did it for the paramount public purpose of letting Americans know and law enforcers investigate whether and to what extent our laws may have been violated. And they are not just any laws, but these are laws relating to homicide against born human beings, laws against the selling of body parts and organs of aborted human fetuses, and the laws against changing medical procedures without knowledge and consent to obtain more valuable fetal parts.”

      Catch that? “They did it for..”

      Given this, it seems that the Fact of trespass is already a matter of accepted Facts in Evidence in the court proceeding. That is, the court, the defense, and the judge, have all agreed to admit the Fact of the actual crime. The thing in dispute, the thing the jury gets to decide is whether to uphold the law or nullify the law.

      So the judge, in this light, is simply informing them of non-contested facts and the of the relevant law.

      “I [this court / the defense] have already determined that these defendants trespassed at each of these locations [stipulated Facts, which do not require the jury to determine their truth]. Because I determined that these defendants trespassed, the law assumes that Planned Parenthood has been harmed [informing/reminding the jury about statutory law] and is entitled to an award of nominal damages such as one dollar for each trespass [informing/reminding the jury about statutory law].”

      ———–

      I think the biggest issue here is the use of the phrasing “I have determined” rather than “it has been stipulated and accepted by this court” or some similar phrasing. It makes it seem that the judge is acting as “finder of fact” which is, absolutely, not his job. Whereas this has clearly been admitted by the defense and is not a contested fact. So it’s just fine for him to provide to the jury as Fact. ….. but then to couple it, as he did, with the relevant law just paints a bad picture. It just “smells” wrong, you know?

      But it does follow, right? “They admit to the act. The law says this act has harmed them. The law says this is the minimum award.” Boiled down to that, it doesn’t seems wrong.

      • Well, No, I don’t see how this is okay. He is the Judge afterall. He should know what he can and can’t do. He didn’t just seem to be saying he was the fact finder. He declared it. He said twice ” I have determined, because I determined”. He declared them guilty.

        As far as fact in evidence, it would be like a Judge declaring, ” the defendant broke into John’s house, the law says blah, blah, blah, so all the jury needs to decide is how much time the defendant has to spend in jail. To h*’ll with all the other facts in evidence.

        • He declared it. He said twice ” I have determined, because I determined”. He declared them guilty.

          I agree the phrasing is… weird.. but this is clearly a stipulated fact.

          The defense attorney, in his closing remarks, even acknowledges this fact outright: “They did it for..”

          The job of the jury is to determine disputed facts, no stipulated facts.

          He could “declare” that he has determined the sun will rise in the east.. so long as neither party disputes this fact, then it is just a fact, and he can hand it to the jury as a fact he has determined to be true.

          ” the defendant broke into John’s house, the law says blah, blah, blah, so all the jury needs to decide is how much time the defendant has to spend in jail. To h*’ll with all the other facts in evidence.

          If the law does not care about the “other facts in evidence,” but only that he did it. There obviously is no exception to trespass law which exempts journalists. The defense is “I did it because…” so what is wrong with this? The guy says he did it. The judge reminds the jury he admits to the act. Then he sites the law saying that “if this, then that.” And, “if that, therefore this other thing.”

          It is admitted that he did trespass.

          Period, full stop.

          So, therefore, he is guilty.

          That’s the law: you are guilty of trespass if you trespass. That’s a neat little tautology, sure, but since they ADMIT to trespass, then that is necessary and sufficient to establish guilt. Game over.

          He admits guilt. –> Therefore he is guilty –> Therefore the other party is harmed –> Therefore the other party is due at least statutory minimums.

          He isn’t saying he’s not guilty – he’s throwing himself on the mercy of the jury to refuse to punish him for breaking the law.

          Q: “Did you rob the bread store?”
          A: “Yes, but it’s ok because I did it to feed my sister’s starving child.

          Judge to Jury: “He robbed the store. The law says this is a crime. The minimum punishment is five years hard labor.”

          Juror: “Well, the law is clear… but I still might say “to hell with it” and let him off the hook.”

          The jury has the power to simply ignore empirical reality and all relevant laws and do whatever they want. They CAN say “yes, but we don’t care. We find his justification acceptable,” but that’s not “law.” That’s not the purview of the judge to instruct the jury. No judge on the planet would instruct a jury about jury nullification. His job is to follow the law. His job is to instruct them to do what the law says in light of the facts on hand.

          Facts in hand + relevant law = jury instruction. If the jury wants to nullify the law, that’s their business, but it’s not the judge’s job to push them into being lawless.

          • “If the law does not care about the “other facts in evidence,” but only that he did it. There obviously is no exception to trespass law which exempts journalists”

            There isn’t, on what do you base this proclamation? Pretty sure, any exceptions are decided by the jury, not pre ordained by the Judge.

            • Previously: “There obviously is no exception to trespass law which exempts journalists” – Mathius

              There isn’t, on what do you base this proclamation?

              Firstly, the defense would have relied on such an exemption if there were one. Rather than making the case from scratch that “he was only blab blah blah,” they would have said something like “the law and/or legal precedent allows this in the case of legitimate journalism blah blah blah.”

              Secondly, the judge would have instructed that this exception exists and could be considered.

              Thirdly, this obviously DOESN’T exist because otherwise tabloids would be breaking into celebrities’ homes and rifling through their underwear drawers.

              Pretty sure, any exceptions are decided by the jury, not pre ordained by the Judge.

              Absolutely not.

              Well.

              Sort of not.

              Look, it’s complicated.

              The US legal system has a weird kind of duality. We have what are called “case law” and “book law” (or statutory law).

              The later are the laws – as written and passed – by the legislature. These are the LAWS. These are what lay people generally think of when someone says “the law is X.”

              The former is the law that just sort of “builds up” over time around book laws like scaffolding to sort of “fill in the gaps” and form a consistency on how things are handled when they might not be crystal clear. If, for example, there were an exception for “legitimate journalism,” case law would build to to establish tests and standards for what, exactly, qualifies as “legitimate.” That’s because the book law’s use of the term “legitimate” may not have been sufficiently clear.

              So when we have things like “exceptions” to a law, it can be either that (A) the book law explicitly allows an exception or (B) the case law allows an exception.

              I won’t say “never” but, in general, an exception will be created by book law and expanded by case law. It would be usual for case law to create an exception out of whole cloth as that would be overriding the book law, whereas book law absolutely has priority.

              Case law is a lot more… squishy… it’s subject to change, to being overturned, to judicial review, and to new overriding book law should the legislature wish to clarify.

              Consider that we have decades of case law built up around Roe v Wade, but it could all be thrown out at the stroke of a pen, should Congress / POTUS pass a new law. So, understand, that Book Law is far more powerful.. it’s just that the legislature so often abdicates this power to the judicial through their inaction.

              What the defendants in this case are (seemingly) trying to do is to create their own case law. They want the courts to carve out a new exception in the law (*ahem* activist judges *ahem*) such that this is now a legitimate exception.

              What’ll happen is, if the court agrees, the judge will rule that he finds the activity to be some kind of narrow exception based based ::waves hands vaguely::. Then another court will make a similar ruling. Eventually another court will make the same ruling – using the first few as precedent. Then a superior court will uphold the precedent. And behold, it’s now established case law. It has become scaffolding upon which future cases – and future case laws – may be evaluated. And when future cases of this nature are tried in that jurisdiction, this will be an affirmative defense.

              So, for example, trespass law might have an exception for “accidental trespass.” And it’s anyone’s guess what that means. So the courts try a bunch of cases… sure, if you wrote the address down wrong, that’s ok. If you got drunk and stumbled into your neighbor’s house, that’s no ok. And so on. Until enough case law had built up that there’s a scaffolding around what it means to “accidentally” trespass. And then we have new case law.

              What might also happen is that the courts might determine that “accidental trespass” includes situations which might not have been explicitly intended by the legislature, but don’t necessarily conflict with the intent either. Say, unwanted Christmas carolers. They aren’t wanted, they aren’t authorized, so they’re trespassing, and they knew they were going onto someone else’s property without permission, so that’s trespass, but they thought they might have been wanted, so that’s… and here the courts decide that this is an “accident”… an exception. But it’s a NEW exception. Then, after enough cases, the “Christmas carolers’ exception” is born.

              But until that happens, this is NOT case law. There is no “journalist exception” to trespass law. At this stage it’s just “making shit up and hoping someone buys it.” (It’s also “throwing yourself on the mercy of the jury and hoping they give you that $1 statutory minimum fine”).

              And there is no reason for a judge to instruct a jury to consider an exception to a law which the defendants pulled our of their hindquarters.

              • Not pulled out of their hind quarters, it’s based on freedom of the press. And the Judge did not read them the applicable law, he stated that He had determined they were guilty of trespass.

              • Not pulled out of their hind quarters, it’s based on freedom of the press.

                Freedom of the Press is not a recognized defense against trespass.

                They made up the defense.

                That they tried to ground it in the First Amendment is fine, but they still made it up.

                They said, yea, well, I know we haven’t used it this way before.. .but if you really think about it, couldn’t this be a defense here, too….?? Pllllleeeeeeaaaaasseee?

                And the Judge did not read them the applicable law, he stated that He had determined they were guilty of trespass.

                Because they admitted they were guilty of trespass.

                They didn’t deny that they trespassed.

                What they did was say “yes, we did it. But it’s ok because..” and then gave a reason that they made up and tried to tie to a recognized right.

                The judge was under no obligation to instruct the jury to consider an exception to the law which the defense made up just because it has some peripheral attachment to a legitimate right.

                He instructed the jury that the defendants trespassed because… they trespassed. If the jury wanted to nullify the law based on the defense council’s legal arguments, that’s on them.

        • By the way, not that it has anything to do with the judge’s instructions, but the defense that a journalist can trespass with impunity upon private property because they’re trying to “shine a light” or whatever is a horrifying door to open.

          It’s an insane defense.

          V.H. is running for town council, so I’m going to break into her house and rifle through her papers, maybe hack her computer, maybe leave behind a hidden camera.. but it’s ok, it’s ok.. I’m a journalist in pursuit of the truth!!

          • If they broke into someone’s private home or office, I’d put them in jail. That’s not a good example for this situation. But just like journalist have anonymous sources who leak them Classified Information aren’t jailed for reporting on it, is also an insane idea. I wouldn’t jail them for it because there are all those other Reasons to allow it, you know finding the truth, that make their actions looked at differently, because of that little thing called Freedom of the press.

            • (A) Freedom of the press does include freedom to trespass. At least, not yet, it doesn’t.

              (B) I wouldn’t jail them for it because there are all those other Reasons to allow it, This is called “jury nullification.” As I discussed, as a juror, you have the ability to say “to hell with the law, I’m not convicting this guy.” But that doesn’t mean the judge has any obligation to (in fact he would be wrong to) advice you to nullify the law.

              (C) I wouldn’t jail them for it because there are all those other Reasons to allow it, you know finding the truth, that make their actions looked at differently, because of that little thing called Freedom of the press. And if a liberal rag hired a journalist to break into the RNC headquarters to, you know, “find the truth” about this or that, would you be singing the same tune?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Is not the legal argument for FORCING integration in a business that it is a Community entity and not Private Property in the absolute sense?????

            If you can force me to sell services to X because I am a public entity then the public has a right to be on my premises………..DURING WORKING HOURS.

            • Is not the legal argument for FORCING integration in a business that it is a Community entity and not Private Property in the absolute sense?????

              Semi-public.

              Yes, that’s the argument.

              Not one I totally buy into, by the way, but yes.

              OK, so try a different example.

              I think Apple is adding chips to control my mind through my phone. So I break into their headquarters and plant cameras in Steve Cook’s office. It’s ok, it’s ok… I’m a journalist! I’m after the truth! You can’t arrest me! I’m a journalist!! I’m A jOuRnAlIsT!1!

              If you can force me to sell services to X because I am a public entity then the public has a right to be on my premises………..DURING WORKING HOURS.

              I think you know there’s a difference between “legitimate use” / patronizing a store and behavior which would not be permitted. By your argument, I should be able to go behind the counter at star bucks and make myself a coffee. I mean, the store is open and it’s “public” and I can apparently go wherever I want and do anything I want while I’m there, right?

              I mean, JAC, I think you’re playing devil’s advocate, but it’s just silly.

              A business as a right to refuse you access to its premises for any number of legitimate reasons. There is no legal framework in this country which allows you unfettered access to private businesses’ properties in the manner you describe.

  33. Rut Roh…….the impeachments must go forward in light of the recent economic news……there is no recession and inflation is 1.9%. No recession is forecast for 2020 and inflation rates predicted to stay below 2%. Median income is rising and is predicted to continue into 2020….minority unemployment at its lowest marks in 70 years.

    Soooooo……..the opposition needs something else to distract….

    • No recession is forecast for 2020 and inflation rates predicted to stay below 2%.

      WHOA!

      Whose crystal ball are they using to project recessions a year in advance?

      …. and can I borrow it for a bit?

      • Scary, isn’t it. I saw it on the business news….so whatever agency that determines this has spoken….I then switched to a different business news channel and saw it there as well….so…….therefore, it must be…..it has been ordained. The gurus have said it….the omnipotent one or ones have spoken……

        {{{meanwhile, Mathius and the Colonel are sipping their favorite beverage with raised eyebrows}}}}

  34. Just A Citizen says:
    • One of these two parties (or both) has a real bad habit of projecting.

      It seems that literally everything the Left accuses the Right of, the Right turns around and says “nu uh! You!”

      • ROFLMAO! Russian collusion? Who paid for the Russian info in the Steele Dossier? Clinton and the DNC, that’s who.

        Ukraine collusion (or whatever Schitt is calling it these days), who is the Chalupa person who went to the Ukrainian Embassy to dig up dirt on Trump in 2016? A Lefty of course.

        So yes, Mathius, one party has a HUGE problem with projecting and it falls where the evidence takes us, LEFT.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        While that can be true and often is, that is not what is happening here. There are LEGITIMATE findings regarding Ukrainian involvement in shady things which include certain US citizens working with them. The irony in this is that Giuliani would be one of those working with certain Ukrainians, because he likes their stories.

        • I didn’t say which party is the one projecting….

          • Just A Citizen says:

            My point is that this story IS NOT and example of PROJECTING.

            Besides, projecting is not when you accuse the other guy of doing the same thing, or doing it better/badder/more often, etc etc.

            It is when you claim that the other guys accusation is indicative of who they really are, and has nothing to do with you in reality.

            Democrats screaming RACIST at everybody is indicative of their own racism, as an example.

            • My point is that this story IS NOT and example of PROJECTING.

              Mayhaps it’s a projection of the left… for they benefitted from Ukrainian meddling, so they project Russian meddling onto Trump.

              It is when you claim that the other guys accusation is indicative of who they really are, and has nothing to do with you in reality.

              I’m not sure I agree with your definition.

              But I don’t wish to duke it out with you over terminology. I mean to say that one side is making claims against the other side that they themselves are guilty of.

              Democrats screaming RACIST at everybody is indicative of their own racism, as an example

              Yes… exactly what I’m talking about.

              The Democrats think we should have laws to stop racism (as if that works) and the Republicans try to stop them, so they scream that the Republicans are racist, and the Republicans scream, “no you’re the real racists!”

              Without weighing into who is correct, all I’m saying is that there’s an awful lot of “no, you’re the real X here” going on.. I just find it interesting is all.

    • The Colonel, seeing the word “incoming”, dived under his desk before reading the clip……..

  35. DACA protestors are in USA illegally saying….you cannot throw us out…..

    Put me in charge….just five minutes is all I ask…only five.

    • Mr. The Colonel,

      Let us grant you the power of a god for one moment. You snap your fingers and 10+ million illegal immigrants simply vanish from the United States and reappear in their countries of origins.

      Let us go further and grant you your second wish of a mighty wall. It is 50 feet high, of impenetrable steel, and an equal depth below ground. It spans coast to coast, with specialized “dog doors” to allow wildlife to pass, but which will instantly vaporize any human who tries to utilize them. The entire thing is monitored along every inch, bristling with ground tremor sensors and motion detectors and facial recognition technology and, of course, turret guns. Predator drones fly lazy circuits overhead, thick as a swarm of locust. This exists, not merely on the Southern border, but to the north and two miles out to sea on both coasts as well.

      Let us grant you a third wish that the legal checkpoints, including at airports, be beefed up to the point of perfection. Fully staffed, fully supplied, fully trained with all the latest and greatest technology imaginable. Not a microgram of pot may pass, no trafficked human, no falsified ID. No, not even a person with a negative thought or bad intention may pass. Nor, even, if they have a runny nose, let alone an actual communicable disease. Every visitor from abroad receives a GPS-enabled neck-collar and must leave at the expiration of their time, or the device will explode, decapitating them and alerting DHS where to retrieve the corpse.

      (please stop drooling on your keyboard)

      Ok, now, Mr. The Colonel, tell me this: (A) What happens to the US economy? (B) What happens to the Latin American economies, and does that impact the US economy in any way? (C) Does any of this have any negative national security implications?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        me, me, me………..please call on me………….. oh, oh oh……..waiving hand as high as I can reach.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        OK, thank you, thank you.

        1. There will be zero negative National Security ramifications. In fact our security will be enhanced, although maybe more expensive. But then if we account for all costs associated with Illegal Aliens living here maybe it is a savings.

        2. The American economy will be just fine. Goods and labor will continue to flow, except it will be legal and managed.

        3. The Latin American economies will be just fine. Goods and labor will continue to flow, per the rules of each country.

        • To confirm, does the Honorable Representative from Idaho mean to state, begging your pardon for putting words in your mouth, that the sudden dislocation of more than 10 million people will have negligible consequences for good or ill?

          If I might add a followup point, Mathius wonders who washes the dishes at your local restaurant and who picks many of the potatoes of your fair state?

          It seems to me that if these people are here, it is predominantly, though not exclusively, because there are jobs for them here. And if they are not here, those jobs stand unfilled. And, if I might go further, insofar as those jobs need to be performed, and insofar as it is presently worthwhile to hire illegal workers, then the wages must perforce rise until legal Americans are enticed into accepting the work. Does it not, good sir, stand to recon that end costs to the consumers must also rise as a result of increase costs of labor inputs? That, or perhaps, supply may decrease which, per Keynes and Smith, demands that prices will rise?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            The removal of 10 million people will be good…….. at many levels. But my real contention is that in a very short time those of them with jobs will return with legal documents in hand.

            As for menial tasks like washing dishes, until recently this was done by older folks wanting work, teenagers wanting work and low skilled folks wanting work. These same people also do the vast majority of the lawn and yard care work in the area.

            Our service industry has not, until now….knock on wood, been dominated by “migrants” or “illegal aliens”. The Farm work is another matter, however. The migrants dominate in that area. Which is mostly west of us in Washington or in southern Idaho.

            The “Hispanic” workers are a major part of the tree planting crews in spring. They come with their legal documents which are secured before they enter the USA.

            • The “Hispanic” workers are a major part of the tree planting crews in spring. They come with their legal documents which are secured before they enter the USA.

              The kids at my school used to drive by the Strawberry fields and shout “Immigracion! Immigracion!” And a hundred heads would pop up and start sprinting in the opposite direction.

              I never participated in this particular activity. But I knew plenty who did.

              As for menial tasks like washing dishes, until recently this was done by older folks wanting work, teenagers wanting work and low skilled folks wanting work. These same people also do the vast majority of the lawn and yard care work in the area.

              Why don’t they hire a legal working now rather than an illegal one? Why take the risk? The answer is simple: illegal is worth the risk because it’s cheaper. Salary / benefits / taxes. Right? It’s just that simple.

              If the restaurant has to hire a teenager or old-timer (at minimum wage, plus taxes), that HAS TO BE more expensive than what they’re paying an illegal immigrant now or they would hire the teenager/old-timer now and avoid the risk from breaking the law. Right?

              So labor costs HAVE TO rise.

              Which means that deep dish meat-lovers pizza with extra pineapple you ordered for lunch now costs more.

              Which mean you’re less likely to buy it.

              Which, on aggregate, means less demand.

              Which, on aggregate, means a net loss for the economy.

              ::hurls Kensian Economics 101 textbook at you::

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I am sorry Sir, I overlooked your more pointed propositions regarding economic impacts. It is very possible that wages will rise as a result. Even considering the return of “legal” migrants for many of those jobs. But has it not been the contention of your political group that increased wages is critical to economic well being and reduction in the wealth gap? Which you claim is potentially destructive to our way of life?

            Is it better to increase wages and perhaps costs to consumers, who then can choose what to buy or not, or to indiscriminately tax those consumers to subsidize the labor secured with Illegal Aliens?

            I would also like to point out that our unemployment data does not include many who would work in some of these “vacated” jobs if they became available. I bring your attention to the screaming of a few years ago about how the Tomatoes in Alabama would rot due to the deportation of illegal farm workers in the State. The Tomatoes did not rot in the fields like predicted.

      • You cook me the perfect pizza and then say quit drooling……

        No, the economy would not suffer.
        I do not care about the Latin American economy as it does not affect trade.
        Absolutely no impact on National Security…..

        Now, that said…what I forgot to interject was that the protestors are not the ones that have been here for ten years…..these are imported protestors newly arrived for this purpose. They are surrogates.

  36. Newly released documents, allegedly leaked from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s office, show a series of money transfers between Burisma Holdings Limited and former President Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry.
    In addition, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and John Kerry’s son John Kerry Jr. and his stepson Christopher Heinz Jr. all received payments “as partners in the Rosemont Seneca Fund and other affiliated Rosemont Seneca companies,” according to the leak.

    BURISMA HOLDINGS LIMITED, during a period from November 18th 2014 to November 16th 2015 transacted 45 money transfers through MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC in the sum of $3.5M dollars.

    The recipient of the money transfer is Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC.

    Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC is owned and operated by Devon Archer, the Kerry Family including John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr and Hunter Biden.

    All of whom are also listed as partners in the Rosemont Seneca Fund and other affiliated Rosemont Seneca companies.

  37. https://www.westernjournal.com/ukraine-foreign-minister-undercuts-democrats-impeachment-case-no-connection-aid-biden-investigation/

    HMMM, it takes two for a Quid Pro Quo and none of the two in question were aware. It seem’s the only folks aware of such a thing are Crats, who are not the members necessary to have a Quid Pro Quo.

    I have said before, go ahead and Impeach, you will get crushed in 2020. Keep going and 2024 will be solidified as well.

    • It’s absolutely fascinating watching the difference in reporting from the left and from the mainstream and you.

      It’s like three completely different realities.

      Left: WOW!! TRUMP IS GOING DOWN IN FLAMES!!!11!1! o_O

      Mainstream: There’s some damning testimony, but also some glaring weakness in the second-hand nature of that testimony. The big question is whether the moderate Democrats are going to get on board. Will hearsay be enough?

      Gman: WOW! THE SAINTED DONALD J TRUMP, our lord and savior, glory be unto he, IS COMPLETELY BEING EXONERATED AND THE LEFTY LEFTISTS ARE SHOWING WHAT MORONS THEY ARE AND REVEALING WHAT A FAKE CROOKED WITCH HUNT CONSPIRACY NOTHINGBURER BULLSHIT POLITICAL STUNT THIS IS AND THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS FOREVER BECAUSE OF THIS AND THE PEOPLE ARE SEEING WHAT LYING LIARS SHIFTY ADAM SCHIFF AND THE OTHER LYING LIARS OF THE LEFT ARE AND THE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RISE UP AND MURDER THEM ALL IN THEIR SLEEP AND WE ARE GOING TO FINALLY HAVE OUR CONSERVATIVE UTOPIA!!!11!!!!1! o_O

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What MSM are you watching???? Everything I read or hear is pretty much Trump is guilty, the testimony is convincing but will the R’ s just ignore this and rule him innocent.

        That Sir is a far more accurate account of their reporting on this. Even our local news outlets are using the rhetoric and narratives created by the supposed MSM, and Democratic Party.

        Other correction; Right leaning media…….. there is no actual evidence provided yet and nothing POTUS did is necessarily wrong, let alone impeachable.

        • Here’s one… https://thehill.com/homenews/house/470385-key-takeaways-from-first-public-impeachment-hearing

          Some damning stuff… mixed results from the right… it’s all hearsay.. who knows what’s coming… won’t move the needle anyway..

          Other correction; Right leaning media…….. there is no actual evidence provided yet and nothing POTUS did is necessarily wrong, let alone impeachable.

          I didn’t say “right leaning media.” I said “Gman.”

          Your “correction” is rejected.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            My correction stands, as I was correcting you for leaving the right media off the list.

            I don’t care about your Gman list………… it sounds just like the reverse of the stuff I endure everyday reading Politico, The Hill and HuffPo, let alone CNN.

            • My correction stands, as I was correcting you for leaving the right media off the list.

              Then it’s an addendum, not a correction!

              I accept your addendum.

              I don’t care about your Gman list………… it sounds just like the reverse of the stuff I endure everyday reading Politico, The Hill and HuffPo, let alone CNN.

              I don’t care if you care.

              All I was saying is that it’s like living in different realities… the left sees Trump going down in the flames, the objective center thinks there’s some troubling stuff, but some serious flaws in the case, gman thinks the left is going down in flames.

              .. and, yes, the right-leaning media says:
              (A) Trump is the innocent victim in it all, pure as the driven snow
              (B) and even if what he did was bad optics, his heart was in the right place
              (C) and even if his heart wasn’t in the right place, he was within his legitimate authority
              (D) and even if he wasn’t, it would still be “lawful but awful”
              (E) and even if it wasn’t legal it wouldn’t be impeachable
              (F) and even if it was, the Democrats don’t have the votes

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I read the Hill article this AM, It was a toned down version of the one I read last PM. By toned down I mean much of the inflammatory language was removed. Anyway, you should read the others they posted, including their sanctioned “opinion” pieces.

            I stand by my view that even the MSM is using the Dem rhetoric in their reporting. They have accepted the narrative and are trying to look objective while using words in their stories that are leading or outright biased in favor of the Dems position.

            • If that’s so, then the Blue Team is winning the PR war.

              As you and I know, a question like “impeachment” is never about “who is right” but rather “who has the power.” If Blue Team wins the PR war, they’ll have the power, Red Team will fold like a house of cards, and Trump will be impeached.

              I want a fair trial. I neither want him unduly absolved nor “lynched.” I want a fair and open hearing of the facts and an honest and fair vote by the “jury” of senators. If the preponderance of the full and frank consideration of the evidence says he’s guilty, I want him impeached, then drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, and drummed out of society. If the preponderance says he is not-guilty, I want him to go back to work with the heartfelt apologies of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

              Blue has to win the PR war by enough that the independents are calling for blood before they’ll shake loose enough Red Senators to matter…. and I just don’t see that happening.

              And, since there’s a better chance of pigs learning to fly and Canine Weapon singing the Worst Wessel atop the back of one of those flying pigs, I’ll have to settle for the fact that he’s going to be let off because Red Team won’t abandon him because Red Base won’t abandon him, and fact don’t matter in that equation. He could, as he has said, shoot someone in the face in Times Square and not lose any support.

              But, then again, as I understand it, the same thing could have been said about Nixon before his support collapsed… so what do I know?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                First, I acknowledge that you have called for objective and fair hearings and trial, if it comes to that.

                Second, the Dems ARE WINNING the PR campaign. So far……… The R’s are just now engaging on that front as they pretty much left Trump on his own so far. Well Trump and a few of his mouth pieces, like one Sean Hannity.

                As you say, the Blue teams needs to win the PR effort to get impeachment approved by enough to keep them from blowing off their own fingers, as in blowing the next election. Not necessarily to get him actually IMPEACHED. The R’s need to win it in order to absolve Trump and not blow off their fingers.

                About 40 to 45% of the Country, mostly Dems and ex Dems claiming Indep status, are hard set against Trump and are on board with impeaching him, no matter the issue and beginning two years ago. There is probably about an equal or slightly smaller amount on Trump’s side, regardless……….unless a really stinky crime was in fact revealed. This is where we differ. I think his base would abandon him if there was solid evidence of a real crime or true treason against the USA. Maybe even if there were direct and obvious evidence of self dealing. Remember, they have PENCE as back up.

                If the base is really as solid as you claim then I think you can thank the hard Blue team for that. I think the vitriol and calling for impeachment from soon after the election has tainted the water so badly most of his base now believe it is all just a conspiracy to get Trump out. Which it does seem to be, so far.

                I don’t think the Blue team cares about getting him removed. This fight is over about 10% of the population who “might” vote and who will decide the election. If the Blue team can create the sense of “dirty” or even get Trump to “say stupid obnoxious things”, beyond his normal litany, they might get at least half of the 10% to vote him out. As of today, that is the balance…….about 5%.

                If the Blue Team blows off its fingers with this, that 5% could jump to the full 10%. Then they are in trouble.

                The irony in this, to me, is that if Pelosi had just kept the lid on the impeachment garbage and forced her team to tone it down, they were almost guaranteed to take back the Senate and probably win the white house.

      • I am simply providing accurate information on what the Impeachment is all about. So far, the Ukrainian President and now the FM has stated clearly that there was NO QUID PRO QUO, which is the whole issue of the Schitt Circus. The Crats blew their wad on this and have NO CHANCE IN HELL of getting the Senate to do much more than laugh at Pelosi and Schiff. You should put your Red Bull down and enjoy some good accurate journalism for a change. You apparently have learned nothing from the Liberal media’s constant Russian Collusion coverage before the whole damn thing was shoved down their collective throats. But that’s not something you should worry about, if I were you I would see how hard the Crats are trying to protect Biden, before even one Primary has been conducted. It would seem logical that the Crat’s are protecting their nominee, because an investigation into Biden doesn’t help Trump, unless Biden is the nominee. Think about that.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Unless Trump is helped by Biden NOT being the nominee………. just sayin.

          • I was under the weather the last few days, so I actually sat through that boring hearing waiting for something that might matter. Nothing. An Aide overheard a phone call in a restaurant and told Taylor. BFD. Taylor and the other guy were perturbed because Trump was using another avenue than them to conduct foreign policy with Ukraine (they claim). That’s not a crime by any means (FDR had a guy do it his whole Presidency). All both had was second, third and fourth person hearsay. Senator Graham has already stated he will invoke the hearsay rule and not allow any hearsay at the trial. If he can, those two witnesses are useless at trial.

            No matter, any intelligent life form can see that this is partisan politics and a sham.

      • Mathius, you seem to get a bit excited about my straight forward no-nonsense opinions about things when it doesn’t fit your (worldview, narrative fed, brainwashed political beliefs) way of thinking. Then you put on the (I’m yelling) All Caps button and let her rip. I don’t mind 😛 I hope it feels better for Ya. Here, just so you don’t feel alone:

  38. WORLD—Airports around the world are reporting record revenues after introducing a long-awaited feature: the ability to turn off CNN on television sets in their terminals.

    For just one quarter, you can turn off CNN for a full fifteen minutes while you’re waiting for your flight, leaving you with the “far superior” experience of just staring at a blank screen.
    “At long last,” said one man waiting for his flight at LaGuardia as he dropped a few dollars’ worth of quarters into the “Turn CNN Off” slot. “Honestly, I might fly more now.” He’s not alone: airports expect a 426% uptick in traveling over the holidays as flyers no longer have to worry about having the droning words of CNN hosts pounded into their heads for hours on a layover.
    The feature has been one of the most-requested by travelers along with the dismantling of the TSA and pretzel bags with more than 3 pretzels in them.
    The money-making move has inspired moments of human compassion and unity as travelers lend each other money or leave quarters behind atop the television sets for future travelers to turn off CNN. One anonymous philanthropist at DFW prepaid for over a year of CNN-less travel throughout the terminal.
    “It’s great to see what humanity can accomplish when we unite,” said one man at LAX as he rummaged through his pockets to lend a quarter to a woman who wanted to turn off the CNN screen near her. “Here you go, miss. Enjoy your flight!”
    CNN is protesting the move, saying it has cut their viewing audience in half, leaving them with just one.
    A similar program is being rolled out in hospital waiting rooms throughout the country.

  39. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-shield-his-tax-returns-from-prosecutors-setting-up-historic-separation-of-power-showdown/ar-BBWLTHx

    I think it is time for politicians, all of them, to produce their tax returns for public consumption. This should include a report of all investments in which their legislation has/had or may have an affect. These bums don’t get rich on a 150K salary/yr only to be millionaires in a couple years.

    And yes, Trump should release his too.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I DO NOT think any of them should release their Tax Returns. NOBODY FOR NO REASON.

      The IRS records are subject to review in criminal cases. End of story.

      The Dems are on a fishing expedition and they know it. The problem is that there could be a valid reason for them to look into certain tax deduction or practices. The problem for them, or what should be, is they are ONLY asking for Trump’s records. Making it obvious they are using their power to target an individual who was elected President.

      I am guessing SCOTUS punts and allows the lower court decisions to stand. With maybe a scolding for them hearing the case at all. AS the court has long said it should not be getting in the middle of political squabbles.

    • Gman I think it is time for politicians, all of them, to produce their tax returns for public consumption. This should include a report of all investments in which their legislation has/had or may have an affect. These bums don’t get rich on a 150K salary/yr only to be millionaires in a couple years. And yes, Trump should release his too.

      I have to- ::shudder:: -agree with gman here.

      These jerks are making a LOT of money somehow and the most likely answer is that they’re taking advantage of their positions, inside information, etc. This is not acceptable. It is an abuse of their power/positions. And it suggests (but doesn’t prove) that they may not be operating in the interests of the electorate but rather their own pocketbooks.

      As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

      I say all politicians should have to publish their tax returns.. but also their current portfolio on a public platform, and update it in realtime whenever they do a trade.

      If the entire committee on X suddenly shorts futures on X, and then there’s a major change in the law the next day, we should know about that. If the chairman of Y keeps passing super-friendly policies to industry Y, we should know that he has significant holdings in Y and is personally benefiting.

      Thinking about this now, I propose that not only do they have to publish their holdings, but all proposed trading should be frozen for 24 hours before the order can be placed so that The People can front-run the politicians.

      JAC Making it obvious they are using their power to target an individual who was elected President.

      Correct.

      They have determined he is guilty and are now just trying to figure out “guilty of what.”

      I have spoken many times here how that kind of thing is absolute bullshit.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      O’Reilly had an interesting point on Beck’s radio show today. He accuses the media of being complicit in the effort to impeach.

      His point and a good one is that if the Press had been even a little critical of the Dems by looking hard at the supposed evidence and the Ukraine corruption stories, Pelosi would have never given the go ahead. But when they screamed over the phone call and the Press jumped on it like stink on a skunk, Pelosi figured there was no risk.

      Normally I would say enabled is a better word. But given CNN, WAPO and NYT direct efforts I think he is correct saying “complicit”. Especially since they are using the same words/phrases and lines to dismiss the other investigatios into the DNC, Clinton, Ukraine, IC and State Depts as “conspiracy theories” or “unfounded allegations”.

  40. LMAO! Ok. Heads up Mathius.
    when Trump thumps back 10 times harder, I don’t want to hear a peep out of you.

    Pelosi calls on Trump to prove his innocence!!

    Second video of the article, even though the first one sucks too.
    https://therightscoop.com/pelosi-mocks-reporter-calls-him-mr-republican-talking-point/

    • AHA HAAHHH A AHAHAH HAH AHA HA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH HAA

      Pelosi: If the President has anything that’s exculpatory – Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence – then he should make that known, and so far we haven’t seen that.

      HAHAHAH AHAHHA HA HA HA HA HHAHA HAHAHAHAHHA AHAHA HA HAHA AHA !!

      Oh man… I nearly fell out of my chair… that’s HILARIOUS!

      She must have forgotten that Donald has all the best words. 😀

      ————-

      That said, funny as it is, it’s a cheap shot, and I don’t condone it.

      But, man.. that was funny.

      But not ok.

      But fuuuunnnnyy!

      ————-

      For what it’s worth, cheap shot aside, she didn’t “call on him to prove his innocence.” She said she’s having an inquiry and if there’s something he’d like to add, then he’s free to do so.

      The presumption of innocence still holds.. I mean.. technically.. “officially,” anyway… the Blue Team has already (mostly) decided to impeach and the Red Team has already (mostly) decided to protect him.. so this is more “politics” than “trial,” which, as you know, I hate.

      It is not his job – not now, not ever – to “prove his innocence.” It’s her job to prove his guilt.

      But, even so, it’s not unreasonable to expect someone being investigated to provide evidence of their own innocence if they have it. I mean… if he had this exculpatory evidence, why shouldn’t he make it available to the inquiry and end the whole thing? If you’re being investigated for a murder across town and you can prove you were home that night, why wouldn’t you give that to the investigators?

      • Hope this works. 😆

  41. Geraldo Rivera analogy of impeachment. Trump is charged with bank robbery. Except the bank comes out saying they weren’t robbed.

    Today the ex Ukraine Amb tells how she was talked badly about etc before being removed. I’m not sure this is even relevant to an impeachment hearing as there is no crime here. Gulliani is being accused of trashing the woman. I’ve never even heard of her. The circus continues.

  42. https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion

    I had to go digging in the text.. but here is what I believe to be the relevant section: “[…] Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student’s work.”

    The way I read that, while the interpretation might be a touch histrionic, I think it does open the door to the argument that you can be scientifically wrong as long as it’s based on religion and you cannot be penalized. I gather that the intent was that if, for example, a student felt the need to add a prayer to their test or some such, that the teach cannot reward or penalize them for it. But, again, I do think it could be used as the article describes.

    Mostly, I think this is just poorly written law rather than an intentional effect, but it should still be remedied.

    Anyway, just thought it was interesting, and wanted to share.

    • The ILL legislature once tried to pass a bill defining Pi as 3.0 instead of 3.14159… It seems transcendental numbers were beyond their grasp.

  43. Tis the season. One of my favorite songs. No need for a video, just leave it on in the background and relax. Good luck on the hunt, starting this morning .

  44. LOL…..CBO just scored the Barney/AOC agenda…….the cost to each taxpayer down to the newborn………$194,596 dollars. According to the CBO this includes raising the taxes on those making $156,000 per year and upwards to 74% graduating to 87.4%.

    Now, Sir Mathius….seeing as how you are a Bernie fan……and now, by caveat, you are an AOC fan…….are you ready to write your fair share?

    • BTW, since I am an old guy….do not forget my yearly COL increases in Social Security, please.

      • If taxes go up then there should be a commensurate increase in the SS benefits.

        I am retiring at the end of the year so I just asked for a 100% raise for next year. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

  45. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/11/15/the-second-transcript-makes-its-way-into-the-second-public-hearing-n2556552

    Trump giving them some of that proof Pelosi asks for and Schiff tells him to stop interrupting the hearings. Not sure why we’re hearing from this woman, b*tching and making assumptions is just b*tching and making assumptions.As the above article proves.

    • Yovanovitch admidded to not agreeing with Trump’s policy towards Ukraine, beyond that, I see a disgruntled employee. I have no idea what she is there for, she would serve better in an oversight hearing, she is useless on this stage.

  46. Roger Stone found guilty on all charges. 50 years in prison maximum. Real tired of seeing people, excuse me Republican people going to jail over an investigation that should of never happened.

  47. Yovanovitch is talking like the Foreign Services people should just be about what’s best for the US National Security, regardless of who is in office (Dem or Repub). She should have been fired, openly and in public. She is talking like a Deep State person, above the policies of the sitting President and able to determine what is best for the country, despite the foreign policies she’s directed to carry out. WOW, just freaking WOW.

  48. I’m going to put up a new thread for loading speed purposes shortly.

%d bloggers like this: