Coming Soon

Emails from Biden lawyer wanting hard drive will be released at some point.

Comments

  1. This stuff won’t be suppressed much longer. You can bet that Trump will call him out at next debate.

  2. Canine Weapon says:
    • Now in CA with the low flow showerheads, that would be like 12 Canine Weapons and his friends tinkling on you at once.

      • Remember when the low flow issues were around on clothes washers….it was very difficult to get a whole washer full of water…..the ingenuity of people getting around that feature…to get a washer full of water was astounding. All the hackers in this world knew the simple hack of by passing the computer module in the washer…

  3. Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    An idea with which I agree, regarding the Social Media platforms. I have one other. Their “terms of use” is a contract. As such they should be required to write a contract in usual legal standard. That is it cannot be open ended, obtuse, etc. No contract should allow one party to change the rules at will. If you do not obviously violate well defined standards they should not be mess with your site or your comments, etc. Make them liable for contract violation, not the content itself.

    Oh, the same should hold for credit card companies and banks.

    https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2020/10/19/opinion-removing-liability-protections-for-social-media-is-the-wrong-answer/

    • No contract should allow one party to change the rules at will.

      You’d think this would be obvious, but I’ve balked at exactly this kind of language in the business world, too.

      “Oh, yes, these are the terms and this key term is elaborated on on our website and we reserve the right to make changes to it at any time.” What? Hell no.

      Oh, the same should hold for credit card companies and banks.

      A heartwarming tale.

      As such they should be required to write a contract in usual legal standard. That is it cannot be open ended, obtuse, etc.

      In case you had plans to the contrary, here is the EULA from Apple when you get a new iPhone:

      “[…] You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons.”

      • JAC's Daughter says:

        After working at a bank for 7 years, that heart warming tale really does put a smile on my face! hahah

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    This is not the study that was linked in the story I clipped. Haven’t been able to find it this AM. Will try again later. I discussed the study by Haidt a couple years ago. But here is an interesting excerpt from another story which references Haidt.

    “On topics where liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye, opposing sides can try to cultivate mutual respect. In The Righteous Mind, Haidt identifies several areas of morality. Liberals, he says, tend to value two of them: caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in. Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority>, values helpful for maintaining a stable society.

    In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.

    Haidt has a message for both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right’s emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.

    Haidt is not out to change people’s deepest moral beliefs. Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral principles, some of the antagonism would subside. Intriguingly, Haidt himself has morphed from liberal to centrist over the course of his research. He now finds value in conservative tenets that he used to reject reflexively: “It’s yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.””

    My Note: The idea of recognizing that everyone is coming from a moral point of view might work to unify if not for those moral standards which stand so drastically in opposition. Such as the idea of Socialism as some cure all. I think it was the more subtle give and take of “liberal vs. conservative” that led us into the soft fascism we have in govt. today. You call it a Mixed economy or “welfare state”. But since the 60’s the left has pushed harder and harder for full on Marxist BS. The internet, social media in particular, has given this minority a very large voice. That creates clearer divides that are harder to overcome. This is further accentuated by Political Parties which rely on “group identity” to gain and keep power.

    Another theme pops up in Haidt’s work, but which he did not address. Note the comment about “fairness”. So both sides have a sense of fairness. But they operate from different definitions of the same word. Equity in outcomes was a notion foreign to the American experience, well at least pretty minor. So as this concept grew the remaining part sees this as redefining language for political purposes. This adds to the anxiety and distrust as well.

    • Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million,

      Liberals were reluctant to SAY they’d harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million.

      I assure you that, for $1mm, I would punt my own sister through a field goal.

      but they were willing to betray group loyalty,

      Loyalty is not necessarily bad, but BLIND LOYALTY to a group or specific leader sure is.

      disrespect authority

      Screw “authority.”

      or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash.

      Well, I mean.. it’s dead.

      Eww.

      But, well, $20 is $20……

      Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.

      Emphasis on “SAID.”

      I promise you, for $1mm a lot of those conservatives are going to eat Fido, too, regardless of their answers here.

      He wants the left to acknowledge that the right’s emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable.

      On behalf of The Left, I do hereby so acknowledge.

      Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people.

      Boy… it sure doesn’t seem to….

      Or, rather, it only seems to when it’s convenient. (see also the War on Drugs, prostitution, etc).

      Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.

      Sounds good.

      To be fair, this is kind of a balancing act, and we, The Left, do not always get it right.

      Kind of a yin and yang, thing, with lefty-collectivism vs righty-individualism.

      Haidt is not out to change people’s deepest moral beliefs. Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral principles, some of the antagonism would subside.

      It would. It’s one of the reasons I spend time here.

      I was very much in the “conservatives are goose-stepping mindless idiot” camp when I first started paying attention to politics. It’s hard to say how much of my realization that you guys just come from a different place is due to SUFA and how much to just world-experience and maturity. But, I love ya guys (and gals).

      … But I do still think you’re a bunch of lunatics.

      Intriguingly, Haidt himself has morphed from liberal to centrist over the course of his research. He now finds value in conservative tenets that he used to reject reflexively: “It’s yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.””

      HEY! That’s what I said!

      My Note: The idea of recognizing that everyone is coming from a moral point of view might work to unify if not for those moral standards which stand so drastically in opposition.

      I get, from the above, not so much that it would “unify” so much as this understanding might zap some of the animosity.

      I don’t agree with you on… well… on much.. but I don’t dislike YOU. I don’t think you are evil. I don’t hate you. I respect you, your intelligence, your thought process, and your moral compass. And I think you feel much the same about me.

      I still think you’re wrong on pretty much everything, though – and I think you feel much the same about me on that as well.

      I don’t think you have to agree and “unify” – we just have to get our monkey brains out of the “us-vs-them” mindset and into a more human understanding that everyone who isn’t overtly evil is just trying to do the right thing as they see it. If you think they’re wrong, well, they’re wrong, but they’re still well-intentioned.

      Such as the idea of Socialism as some cure all.

      I think this is too simplistic a view.

      Maybe a lot of people do think this – but then again, a lot of people are morons.

      I think the more rational view is “we need a bit more socialism in the US” – not “we need to go full-socialist.”

      I think it was the more subtle give and take of “liberal vs. conservative” that led us into the soft fascism we have in govt. today. You call it a Mixed economy or “welfare state”. But since the 60’s the left has pushed harder and harder for full on Marxist BS.

      Maybe.

      I haven’t been around since the 60’s.

      What I can say it that – from my perspective, the US practices brutal capitalism for 99% of the population and lovey-dovey socialism for the 1%.

      The internet, social media in particular, has given this minority a very large voice. That creates clearer divides that are harder to overcome. This is further accentuated by Political Parties which rely on “group identity” to gain and keep power.

      Amen.

  6. Colonizaton: the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area, e.g., CA democrat moves to Idaho or Texas.

  7. Mathius

    Here is the link. I first put in the wrong place.

    Here is the source of the info, linked in the story at Red State. It was Haidt’s study, The article explains the understanding portion. It is not the study outright but a story about the study. Would have gotten a D- or F from my Prof for that kind of reference.

    https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

  8. Canine Weapon says:

  9. This is the second reference to this that I have seen. Initially I passed it off as another CT but am not sure now. Has anyone seen or heard anything about this? If true it is very disturbing.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/did_the_us_government_hide_bin_laden_in_iran_alleged_whistleblower_releases_evidence_to_make_his_claim.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yes, I saw the early reports which caused the Seal who killed bin Laden to quickly denounce the “conspiracy theory”. Given the danger the Seal has been under since claiming he took the kill shot and how fast and vehemently he responded I think this is probably just some crackpot.

      But as you say. If true it is beyond disturbing.

  10. For our resident “sort of lefty” person…..I ask a serious question on mental state.

    I finally received my T shirt that says: ” I was going to dress up as a liberal for Halloween but my head would not fit up my ass “….Now, here is the question. If you, Sir Mathius, saw someone wearing this T shirt, would you laugh at it or would you be offended?

    I kjnow JAC would laugh his ass off, but would you, a supposedly and intelligent appearing left of center person, or thing, take it as good natured fun?

    I intend to wear it quite a bit but just asking whether or not I should carry an extra gun or would people just laugh it off like all the other t shirts out there with funny slogans…..

    • Canine Weapon says:

      If you, Sir Mathius, saw someone wearing this T shirt, would you laugh at it or would you be offended?

      He’d probably be really offended if he knew how to read.

    • Now, here is the question. If you, Sir Mathius, saw someone wearing this T shirt, would you laugh at it or would you be offended?

      From YOU, I would take it as intended and laugh.

      but would you, a supposedly and intelligent appearing left of center person, or thing, take it as good natured fun?

      I certainly wouldn’t take it as “offensive”.. that is to say, I wouldn’t be offended.

      But I don’t think – if I didn’t know you – that I would naturally take it as “good natured.”

      That is to say, all things being equal, and given the current levels of animosity in this country right now, I would interpret that shirt as an insult / attack. One that, certainly, didn’t land and cause me to be upset or boo boo my snowflake feelings. But one intended hostilely.

      So, no, I wouldn’t be offended, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume it was good natured, either. I wouldn’t get into a fight with you over it – but I’d just assume you’re a person who is hostile
      to me and try to have as little to do with you as possible.

      I intend to wear it quite a bit but just asking whether or not I should carry an extra gun or would people just laugh it off like all the other t shirts out there with funny slogans…..

      Don’t you already carry a half dozen pistols, three rifles, a grenade launcher, and a machete? (plus ammo). What is the “extra” gun going to do for you? How many hands do you have, exactly?

      And do any of your weapons protect you from pirates located 800m away?

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        And do any of your weapons protect you from pirates located 800m away?

        No.

        No they do not.

        Don’t you already carry a half dozen pistols, three rifles, a grenade launcher, and a machete? (plus ammo). What is the “extra” gun going to do for you? How many hands do you have, exactly?

        Ye forgot the GAU-8 Avenger he conceal carries.

  11. What I’m hearing….

    The shop where the laptop was dropped off and the person who dropped it off signed a receipt. The signature is that of one Hunter Biden.

    So now a liberal moderator will have a mute button in the next debate. Should be interesting how it turns out. It doesn’t sound all that bad.

    • Where are the patriots in the democrat party. Why are they silent. Biden should be removed from the ticket immediately. Calling Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama. Where are you?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Silly boy! There are NONE. I got into a virtual screaming match on Facebook the other day pointing out as a 24 year old, I demanded my party, the r’s remove Nixon or ask him to leave even though I knew it would (and did) lead to chaos, even worse than I thought, Viet-nam and eventually Iran. The lockstep 100% voting in congress by d.’s EXCEPT when they release someone during an election for a threatened seat (eg. Manchin W.Va), should tell you that there is nothing in their hearts other than the quest for pure raw power!

  12. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    My latest Facebook rant:

    To believe that Biden’s computer is a “Russian plant” is to believe that the repair shop is a Russian operation, the owner a KGB agent, there is a Hunter Biden clone and that at the very least the Russians knew well before the primaries that Biden would be the winner. Otherwise, there must be computer stores all over the country with planted, Klobachar computers, Warren Computers, Sanders Computers, Booker Computers, Buttagig computers, Gabbard computers etc.

    The whole “idea” of Russian interference for now and the past four years fails on Occams razor.

    As the great el Rushbo would say …. for those from Rio Linda ….. Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct. It is applied to a wide range of disciplines, including religion, physics, and medicine.

    Ergo, it’s Hunters!

    More translation ….. Ergo, Latin word meaning “therefore”; usually used to show a logical conclusion: “Birds are warm-blooded animals, and reptiles are cold-blooded animals; ergo,

    Y’all shoulda opted for a classical education. …

    • Perfect place to put this Candace Owens rant about taxes, education, and 50Cent. Sound bite spoiler…Don’t tell them (schools) to teach you about critical race theory, tell them to teach you economics.

    • The democrats are trying to equate Biden’s emails to Hillary’s emails.

  13. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Another wildly off topic tidbit. For years I knew that even prior to the Spanish American War, Japan had its eyes on the Phillipines and likely would have taken them early in the 20th century as they did Korea if the US had not gotten there first. Last night I read that part of the expansionist reason for siezing Hawaii was Japan’s interest.

    So, fun to speculate that had we NOT moved and the Japanese did, how different the middle of the 20th century would have been. Perhaps San Fracisco instead of Pearl Harbor? That is NOT even to mention that despite our supression of native populations often harshly, based on Japan’s dealings in Korea and Manchuria and later China,, we were pussycats compared to their rabid tigers.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Good Morning SUFA. It is a fine day.

    I see a cat fight has broken out among the “experts” on the Covid Task Force. Apparently the old guard really, really don’t like Dr. Atlas. Brix has gone so far as to openly support his comments being banned by Twitter and Facebook.

    The scientific data is not supporting Fauci or Brix in totality. So when will “trust the science” result in them saying “Oh we have better information now” instead of falling on the same sword over and over again.

  15. AUSTIN, TX—To the relief of Texans across the state, Governor Greg Abbott has signed a law prohibiting escaping Californians from voting after they move to Texas. Experts say this will prevent the happy and prosperous slice of heaven from sliding into the endless despair and crushing poverty of leftist policy.

    “Yeah, all you weirdo Californians are welcome to partake with us in this blessed land,” said Chuck Dillon, a local accountant who dresses like a cowboy. “Bring your music and your little girly men and your avocado toast, but please leave your godless heathen communism in California where it belongs!”

    According to sources, emergency legislation was drafted after it was discovered that 97% of Californians favor destroying every small business on the planet and salting the earth where the businesses once stood. They also favor mandatory gay marriage and banning all country music to avoid hurting the ears of sea turtles.

    “That goofy nonsense ain’t welcome here,” said local Republican representative Carlos Juarez San Juan, a local cowboy who wears a fancy suit.

    Californians have marched on the state capital to demand their voting rights back, and have promised they’ll move on to Oklahoma after they finish destroying Texas.

  16. Canine Weapon says:

  17. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Who woulda ever thunk the Republicans were able to pull off an “October Surprise”?

    But then again NEVER underestimate New Yorkers, Trump and Guilliani or the stupidity and cupidity of modern democrats. Harry Truman they are not!

    • Who’d thunk they had it in them. On top of that it looks legit. Cooney was move from his cell into a more “protected” environment. I hope they keep the cameras on this time.

      Just scanned the headlines at ABC & NBC. Nothing on the emails there, so the MSM is making like an ostrich.

      If these emails were about a republican, they would be political dead meat by now. It just shows how corrupt the entire democrat party has become.

      I remember Watergate very well. The whole story had not come out before the election. McGovern was totally unacceptable as POTUS so Nixon won easily. As the full story came out, many republicans, me included, called for his resignation. We were ashamed and severely disappointed but he had to go.

      • Interesting……now that the signatures have been verified and the lap top is genuine, it certainly appears that the “Big Guy” is in the pocket of Chinese energy companies.

        To use a Mathius parody……where the is smoke……….preponderance of circumstantial evidence……..etc.

        • I’m not seeing anything saying the signature has been verified.. can you point me at it?

          Also, here’s the thing – this is provable. All they have to do is release the emails – not the text, not a screengrab, but the actual metadata-complete file. It will have a cryptographic signature on it which proves that it’s authentic and unaltered. Any IT professional can easily independently verify this with the full metadata. So, if you are Rudy and you’re sitting on actual hard, incontrovertible, proof, why are you not doing this?

          • I don’t recall you requiring the same level of detailed proof during the Russian collusion hoax.

            What about the Cooney emails taken directly from his gmail server? Are these fake too. Also one of the recipients of Hunter’s emails confirmed that he did receive he email. How much proof do you need? If the proof is presented, what will be your position after that?

            • I don’t recall you requiring the same level of detailed proof during the Russian collusion hoax.

              You don’t?

              Well, maybe you can point me at something I said – I don’t really see these two as perfect analogs.

              In one case you have ::hand waiving: evidence that ::something something something:: and the result is that federal agencies believe Russia interfered on behalf of Trump. Add to this the evidence of my own eyes and ears where he “jokingly” solicited their help. Add to this that several members of his cabinet have gone to jail for related crimes.

              I don’t think I’ve ever opined that Trump, himself, was guilty of the Russian Collusion charges. In fact…. you know what, here, I’ll do it for you.

              I’ve waffled a bit, but my consensus opinion has always been some version of “lawful but awful.” Trump is a master of doing the maximally unethical thing while still remaining technically legal (or at least retaining plausible deniability). I have seen nothing that rises to the level of “proof” that he committed any crimes related to “Russian collusion” in the 2016 election. (note that “I can’t prove he did it” is not the same as “I have thereofore proven that he didn’t” nor is it “and no one linked to his campaign did anything wrong either” nor is it evidence either pro or con that he “turned a blind eye to such collusion.”)

              I don’t recall you requiring the same level of detailed proof during the Russian collusion hoax.

              More to the point, the Red Team is holding an alleged smoking gun. And everything they need to prove that it’s authentic is right there. All they have to do is release it.

              Yet they have opted not to do so.

              Why?

              There is no analog on the Trump Collusion allegations. It’d be as if Nancy Pelosi posted an easily forged picture of a Trump email which she could PROVE was real just by releasing the metadata.. and then she didn’t. Why the hell not?

              The only reason not to release the metadata is because it won’t show what you want it to show.

              If you’re going to make a claim and you claim to have rock-solid incontrovertible proof in your hands, for you to refuse to release it is an admission that you do not have this evidence.

              What about the Cooney emails taken directly from his gmail server? Are these fake too. Also one of the recipients of Hunter’s emails confirmed that he did receive he email.

              Honestly, I don’t know anything about this – I had to look up who “Conney” is.

              Yes, I suppose he could be honest. I sure as hell don’t remember emails from last week, let alone last year, let alone six years ago.. but hey, who knows? Not me. Were emails pulled from his server? I don’t know – I got links to Breitbart, who I trust as far as I can throw.

              That’s all beside the point.

              Today, I’m going to tell you about the BEST EVIDENCE RULE.

              The Best Evidence Rule goes something like this: an original document is better evidence than a copy which is better than hearsay, which is better than, which is better than, which is better than. In court, you get to admit only the BEST evidence. So if you have a scanned copy and the original, you only get to present the original. The copy will not be admissible.

              Now, why might this be?

              For exactly this kind of thing.

              Here we HAVE the alleged email. That is THE BEST evidence. We don’t need to consider vague and suspect recollections or claims by known liars like Breitbart. The email is IN HAND. And it can authenticate itself.

              There doesn’t have to be any doubt. (I suppose he could claim it was a plant at the time, though that would be some damned good prescience from the Trump campaign.. or maybe there are burried emails of this sort in every potential nominees’ kids’ servers.) But if you want me to believe the email is real and you have the proof whether the email is real or not, and you refuse to show it to me… I’m not going to believe you.

              Put yourself in the shoes of the accused. I say that you’ve stabbed a hobo and that I have an email to prove it. I also have the word of a criminal who says he thinks he remembers you sending the email. Are you going to be content with being tried in the court of public opinion based on the criminal’s recollection? I mean, if the email is real, and I have it in hand, all I have to do is just release it and that will prove the truth of the matter. Why should I get to “try you” based on weak evidence when the strong and irrefutable evidence is at hand? What does my refusal to allow you to examine the proof which would necessarily prove my case or exonerate you say about me?

              How much proof do you need?

              CITIZEN Mathius needs the preponderance of the evidence and this whole thing stinks to high heaven. Not least because of the timing of it all.

              If Rudy claims he has PROOF, his refusal to release such proof is all the evidence I need that he doesn’t have it.

              More to the point, if he doesn’t have proof that the email is authentic, what he actually has – because this is a binary option – is proof that the email is fake.

              What his refusal to show the metadata says to me is that he has proof it’s a lie, which is why he is trying to “try” Biden in the court of public opinion based on secondary evidence rather than Best Evidence.

              If the proof is presented, what will be your position after that?

              To ask if this is a crime (as opposed to Lawful but Awful) and, if appropriate, have Biden removed from the ticket or the office.

              If guilty of a real crime, he should be tried in a fair trial, duly convicted, sentenced, and then sit in jail until he dies of old age (that’s probably a few weeks).

              • I would like the forensics to prove it as well. The FBI has the original laptop and there are 4 copies of the hard drive, one of which Rudy has. However, none has claimed that that aren’t legit, which Biden would have done immediately if this were true. Unfortunately for Biden, the proof is heavily against him. I expect more people to sing to save their asses.

              • A copy is fine.

                Someone took released the text of the email without the digital cryptographic signature which would prove it.

                Not just that it’s real, but that it’s unaltered.

                Why would they do that?

                Want to see if I can produce an email which shows Trump committed crimes? If I have the email, and I refuse to release the proof of its authenticity, why would you believe me? Why would I hide that proof if it supports proves my claim?

              • Waiting for the right time? Biden will have to say something about it during the debate, if he shows. Release proof during the debate or day after. We shall see.

              • Ah.. so it’s part of the ol’ 13 Dimension Chess Master Plan!

                Got it!

                Ok.

                Fine – I stand by my answer for if it’s proven real.

                What say you if (A) Rudy never releases the metadata or (B) he releases it and it proves the email is faked?

              • Obviously I touched a nerve.

                The Cooney emails are via Peter Schweitzer, a path unrelated to the Biden laptop. Cooney, Hunter’s partner, gave his gmail password to Schweitzer who then down loaded the files from there. Peter has published several of them. They corroborate the activities of the Hunter Biden business activities and the selling of access to the Joe.

                As for the stuff Rudy has:
                1) The server was given to the FBI who have had it since the fall of 2019. The FBI has not commented on the authenticity.
                2) The repair shop has a Hunter Biden signed receipt. I assume the signature can be authenticated.
                3) Biden’s lawyer called the shop and asked for the drive back.
                4) The shop owner made several copies of the drive and gave a couple to friends just in case something happened to him.
                5) Fox has claimed to have asked recipients of the emails to confirm the emails. At least one has confirmed there authenticity.
                6) Several photographs have been released.
                7) Schiff has claimed this is all Russian disinformation but the DNI says they do not have any such information and have not briefed anyone it. Schiff is a known liar.
                8) Rudy claims to have married dates in the emails to dates of event known from other sources. I assume these can be verified.
                9) Joshua Wilson signed the search warrant for search the repair shop. Wilson is in the FBI’s child pornography and abuse division. There are purported videos and photos of Biden with underage Chinese girls. It is assumed the Chinese also have these.
                10) The Biden campaign has not denied any of this.

                Now add in the months of information we have heard from other sources on Barisma, the former wife of the Mayor of Moscow, the Latvian bank laundering, China Inc., etc. The evidence is overwhelming. But of course it is not sufficient for you. If the Russian Hoax had 1/100 of this data, you would have convicted Trump and demanded he leave office. As for those that Mueller got convictions on, they are all for process crimes or crimes committed prior to Trump’s running for office. And given the tactics used by the Mueller team, the FBI, CIA, and DoJ against Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Page, I would conclude that the agencies were the criminals.

                As for Breitbart, they have been correct on the Russian Hoax from the start. The MSM published story after story attributed to anonymous sources which have been proved false. They still push the Russian narrative. The MSM completely missed the true nature of the Russian Hoax and they are so far spiking this story or attributing it again to the Russians. It seems to me you have to be hit upside the head with a 2×4 before you can see the truth when it comes to your beloved party.

              • Canine Weapon says:

            • I don’t recall you requiring the same level of detailed proof during the Russian collusion hoax.

              He [Mathius] believes that Trump is guilty.

              I do?

              News to me.

              The best information I have is that he did not collude.

              That said, he has NOT been proven innocent. Muller did NOT prove that there was no collusion. Muller failed to prove that there WAS collusion, and that is NOT the same thing.

              Source/a>

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                That is pure sophistry. How do I prove you did not kill Jimmy Hoffa who the UAW had hidden in your basement before you bought the house and paid you a tidy sum all these years to feed him? Once they stopped paying, you iced him with a rusty shiv!

                “District attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”
                ” -Sol Wachtler, Retired/disgraced NY State Supreme Court Judge

              • That is pure sophistry

                I don’t believe that it is.

                How do I prove you did not kill Jimmy Hoffa who the UAW had hidden in your basement before you bought the house and paid you a tidy sum all these years to feed him? Once they stopped paying, you iced him with a rusty shiv!

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

                Short version: the burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim.

                For Trump:

                -I- make no claim. I say neither that he is innocent nor that he is guilty.

                -YOU – (or others) make the claim conversely that he is innocent and/or exonerated.

                Likewise, for Biden:

                -I- make no claim. I say neither that he is innocent nor that he is guilty.

                -YOU – (and others) make the claim conversely that he is guilty.

                It is incumbent on you to prove this, not on me to disprove it.

                I merely point out the limitations of my ABSENSE of my claim (and Comey’s). To wit, that failure to prove a thing is not necessarily proof of the inverse. If you cannot prove to me that God exists, that does not constitute proof or an admission that he doesn’t exist.

                Conversely, while in ready possession of clear binary evidence, such as a cryptographic signature, where the evidence necessarily proves or disproves the case (baring some rather outlandish possibilities), a failure to prove the truth of your case is tantamount to proof strong evidence of the inverse.

  18. Mornin SUFA!

    The FBI has Hunter’s emails and hard drive. It is NOT anything Russian.

    Nobody in the Biden camp is saying that the Emails are NOT Hunter’s. Which says everything one wants to believe, they are real.

    Just who is “the Big Guy”? I think we all know, he goes by the name Joe.

    A recent poll (not that I much like them) about Trump voters showing their support, over 60% said that they won’t show their support in public. More to come about this.

    Was out for a short while last evening. The thinking about all the shutdown stuff is that it will end after the election. In addition, many think Biden will claim Covid Positive the day of the debate (Hunters emails) and then claim it was a false positive. This may be the smartest decision he ever made.

    My mother thinks she has Bronchitis, so, had to take her for a Covid test. Came back negative.

    I have heard that Hunters emails may have another country to include, Romania. Are we learning how politicians become so wealthy so fast on their measly salaries?

    The deer rut is ramping up. Doe tag is already filled. Good times ahead 😀

  19. Another interesting thing happening here…..any car with a Trump sticker gets.”keyed”. Yard signs disappearing, houses supporting Trump being vandalized, kids at school being assaulted……….

    This is the new left…the new Democratic Party….the new government. It is not isolated.

  20. New conspiracy theory…..Biden gets elected, China connection is proved, Democrats, in the name of patriotism, throws Biden out…Harris takes over.

    • … she appoints Bernie as VP, then dies in a mysterious tofu-related accident, leaving President Bernie and his new VP Warren.

  21. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    So, a “gem” from the 1930’s all of nine minutes long putting the lie to the SYSTEMIC racism of the United States. Imagine MGM actually releasing this in such a racist country. No doubt in ’38 hundreds of theaters were burned to the ground.

    • Basically it means that the Crats are taking their ball and going home because they can’t get their way, or throwing a childish hissy fit. It won’t keep the Committee from moving forward without them.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Of course expect this to now become part of the mantra which will last until Judge Barret retires that she is “illegitimate”. Got to give it to the democrats, just when you think they cannot possibly be any MORE sleazy, they become MORE sleazy!

      Years ago, I came to realize that if someone shoots their foot off with a shotgun because they do not follow the instructions it is NOT the fault of the guy on the assemblyline who built the gun.

    • Pretty simple…..the Senate has and can invoke rules to by pass most anything. Barrett will be confirmed and the only thing that can stop it is if the Republicans vote against her,

      What has really hurt the Dems on this one is invoking what is called the nuclear option which was introduced and for the first time by Senator Reid (Democrat) and Reid was warned that it would back fire in later years……..and it has. The Dems can’t stop it because it is their own rule.

  22. Question:

    I hand you a fair six-sided die and tell you “you most likely will not roll a four.”

    You then proceed to roll the die and, behold, a four.

    “HA!” you cry victoriously. “Clearly, your statistics are worthless.”

    Was I wrong?

    • Well, in this instance your statistics were worthless. 😆

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I took that course! NO!

      • Good.

        Gold star for you.

        Ok, now, a followup:

        If I compile a bunch of polls and conclude that there’s a ~12% of Trump winning

        We go ahead and have the election and – ugh – he wins.

        “HA!” you cry victoriously. “Clearly, your statistics are worthless.”

        Was I NECESSARILY wrong?

        • NECESSARILY? Since polls are at best an educated guess. What does “necessarily” have to do with the possible outcomes.

        • No…..statistics actually mean nothing unless you are in a repetitive situation. Polls are inaccurate…..this plus or minus 3 percent or margin of error proves stats are not exact.

          • It is a recognition of the limitations of accuracy in representative sampling.

            It is the “standard” error.

            If I say, Trump’s disapproval rate is 54% +/- 3%, is generally understood to represent a 95% confidence level that his disapproval rate is between 51% and 57%. Even if the result falls outside that range (say, 60% disapproval), that doesn’t mean the poll is “wrong” because the poll didn’t say that it wasn’t 60%.. what it said is that 60% is unlikely.

            • 1 sigma is 68%, 2 sigma 90% 3 sigma 95% (approximately). For legal testing purposes when measuring octane number of gasoline we used 95%. We were allowed only one measurement in 20 to be outside of that range. This ASSUMES Gaussian statistics and NO systematic errors. The sample tested must be a representative sample of the population. The latter requirement is where most voter polls fail.

              I am not sure what statistic the polls are using, whether it is 1, 2, or 3 sigma.

              • Hello, professor!

                I’m pretty sure – though I could be shown wrong – that it’s 3σ.

                That said, yes, the systematic error or sample error is the bigger problem.

                I came up with a 99.99% (4σ) confidence interval that Trump will lose based on a survey I conducted of my immediate family members.

                So the question I would ask you is this: why does Fox’s polling show Trump behind?

                If the error is systemic, then the only options are deliberate or incompetence, right? If the later, they should pull in different directions and be scattered. If the former, Fox should pull one way and Rasmussen etc the other.

                Yet they all cluster generally in the same range(s) and in the same direction (even while, generally, Fox, etc, tend to skew a bit more friendly to Trump.

                If it’s just messing with who you ask and how you ask them, why aren’t the pro-Trump results showing him leading?

                If it’s just sheer incompetence, why are the results clustered?

              • There is a difference between one sided and two sided confidence limits.

              • Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

                I understand the concept – I just don’t see what you mean by it here.

              • Ex.: The legal limit for gasoline is 90 octane. The fuel I must produce must exceed that figure 95% of the time. If my measurement accuracy is 1 octane (1 sigma) then I meet the requirement if I produce >=92 octane. I am only concerned about the tail on the left side so I can use a 2 sigma limit and forget about the 5% from the right side. But then the refiner says I do not want to produce gasoline that is too good because I am giving away money. Now I must test on both sides. So 2 sigma now drops to only 90% confidence and I must increase the requirement to 3 sigma to achieve 95% confidence. So now I must produce a gasoline of 93 mean octane for a range of 90-96. Note in the first case I only had to produce 92 octane minimum to meet the legal standard. So I could sell 98 octane and be fine but I would be giving away a lot of money.

                Now you can apply this same criteria to global warming models. The validation process is used to prove you model predicts accurately within a specified limit. Not only do the individual values must agree within the tolerance with the measured values, the bias (average error) must be near zero to be validated. This is where the climate models fail. They over predicted the last 20 years but fell within the stated tolerances. However, the bias was huge (positive) thus the models fail validation. Hence, the models cannot be used for predicting the future until they are modified to agree with the data. Unfortunately, NASA and NOAA are adjusting the data to fit the models, a huge no no.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Apples and oranges. One is independent of human effect the other is entirely subject to human effect.

          As i have pointed out before, and it was not the only time I observed the phenomena. If you look at the polls the night before Guilliani beat Dinkens, Guilliani lost by a significant margin.

          I, no shrinking violet, have always had up signs in the past and stickers on my cars. This time, even if I wanted to, the bride would remove them. Last time out I had a magnet attached. This car has an aluminum hatch. I have teh hat and do not wear it excepty at gun shows. I have a button which takes a while for people to figure it out. It’s a photo of Teddy R with a big grin and Trump 2020 superimposed on the lower half. A conversation starter for sure.

          • Humans are predictable.

            Especially en masse.

            A person might be hard to know what they’re going to do… but a population is more fathomable.

  23. Has anyone watched the Lesley Stahl/Trump interview? No question she is in the tank for Biden. Absolutely stupid gotcha questions. It will be interesting to see if they actually air the interview and how they cut it up.

  24. Well watched the debate. It was far more civil than the last one and the moderator was much better. The questions were still inane. Spent way too much time on Covid. Biden is going to need a much better answer to the emails than it is Russian disinformation. There are now 3 sources of documents, 2 eye witnesses, an open money laundering investigation, possible child endangerment plus money from multiple countries.

    I think Trump knows the proper answers to the climate change questions but cannot say them because it would be used against him. The problem is it has become a religion and it is very difficult to challenge tenets of a religion. So Joe wants zero CO2 emission by 2050. Good luck with that. Does he have any idea how many products come from oil?

    I am sure the fact checkers are all busy. I know Joe told a few whoppers but I doubt the MSM call him on them. Lincoln was the most racist president?

  25. I had to go to St Louis this past Tuesday. I wore my t shirt that I wrote about above….and a 2020 MAGA hat…….want to start a fight? Wear that. It was fun. I just got back in last night and going to wear it again on Monday…see what the reaction is in Texas.

    No one did anything but the looks were pretty intense.

    • There are millions of T shirts with different controversial sayings on them all over the world but this one seems to rile the senses more. It is amazing how a simple T shirt with a slogan can rile people up….pretty lame.

    • Is he wrong? More government is not free.

      • I won’t speak to whether he’s right or not. That is highly debatable.

        What I think is less debatable is that he’s threatening a rent hike and offering a bribe with a rent freeze in order to coerce his tenants.

        This, I’m pretty certain, is blatantly illegal.

  26. Canine Weapon says:

  27. Canine Weapon says:

  28. Where are the Democrat patriots?

    • Wow! That is POWERFUL.

      Mathius….what do you think? Just more propaganda?

      Murf

      • Reading, but busy this AM..

        Preliminary thoughts…

        1) “I am from New York”… a few paragraphs later.. “I am from the Rust Belt”… huh?

        2) This person is insufferable. I have read thousands of books, too, ya know. You know who puts that up in their bio – and then repeats it in their article – while calling themselves and autodidact as though they had no formal schooling? Insufferable blowhards. Now, lest we consider this an ad hominem, I will add that this does not affect the value of the things I say, just that she (?) is an annoying and unlikeable narrator.

        3) While I haven’t read the whole thing yet, it sounds like she lived in a bubble. In fact, she calls it that. I have long asserted that the views of the far left need to be tempered, and that places like San Francisco are the worse for it. I am no stranger to lefty-ness, and I cannot tolerate life in these lunatic asylums any more than I could in the East Texas or Galt’s Gulch.

        4) “Jordan Peterson proposed the right goes too far with virulent nationalism. He did not have an answer for when the left has gone too far. I humbly propose tolerance for harm.” Ok, now, HERE we have something of interest. I will have to see the argument she lays out, but it sure feels like this point might have legs.

      • Oh, Jesus.. this person is insufferable.

        It’s like a conservative caricature of the elite self-impressed neo-liberal butterfly snowflake were animated by a magical tophat and started writing lengthy articles where, presumably, it’ll get to the point eventually..

        ————

        One thing I never imagined is that it became a catalyst for meeting local conservatives and finding they were great! Tolerant, fun loving, open to discourse — all the things I no longer saw in the left.

        Alright – one of the things, I’m going to go ahead and assume if the biggest issue here is that she just missed an important point.

        There are assholes everywhere, and on every side.

        Somehow, along the way, here little microcosm of “alternative newpapers” and ultra-left aligned hippies became the embodyment of “liberalism” to her.

        What she failed to realize that it wasn’t their ideas, per se, which were the problem. But, rather, that they were assholes. And that she was, too (by her own admission) and continues to be, if not an asshole, at least a self-impressed snowflake.

        Conversely, she met a group of conservatives who WEREN’T assholes, and exported “hey, these are nice guys” onto the whole.

        I think that’s a flawed approach in both directions.

        I was invited to the big Republican fundraiser this February, the Lincoln Day Dinner. I went prepared to catalog the hate I encountered. Instead, I had a GREAT time!

        Of course she was!!

        Everyone loves an apostate.. .from the other side.

        Trust me, the left had trained me to search for [hate] with laser precision

        See, again, this is not “the left.”

        This is “the assholes in her little bubble.”

        Don’t get me wrong – these people exist in no small number, but in my entire life running in liberal circles, I’ve only ever had intermittent interactions with them a handful of times. You know why? Because I try not to associate with assholes – even ones who nominally share my political alignment.

        Likewise and conversely, I’m sure the conservatives here largely share most of the political aims of any of the more extreme righty-groups – but they don’t hang out with the Klan or Westboro people. Why? Because they don’t want to associate with assholes – even ones who nominally share much of their political alignment.

        This woman, conversely, being an insufferable prat, found a home and an identity in one of these circles. Then, when questioning it, found herself an apostate and consequently rejected. Everyone hates an apostate… from their own side.

        The reaction from my friends was not positive. No one was happy I was dismantling my bigotry. The struggle sessions began. My character was put on trial for daring to associate with conservatives and worse, saying nice things about them. THIS WAS WHERE ALL THE HATE WAS. From people who allegedly liked me and were on my side. It could not be starker.

        Yes.

        Because her friends are.. and I cannot stress this enough… assholes.

        And cultists.

        And cultists do not like it when you leave the cult.

        People were interested in what I had to say. Not so on Facebook.

        Because facebook is comprised of …. your friends… and your friends’ friends… see how this works?

        The opposite of the left, which has become numbingly repressive and abusive, where I don’t dare speak freely.

        Maybe she’ll get to it, but it seems that she skipped over “moderate left” and went straight to “conservative.”

        Forget her identity and personality and and and and… she has some kind of political core… I’m assuming.. she hasn’t really mentioned it beyond “homelessness bad” – which I think we can all agree with – and even if it were true that the left were chalk full to brimming with assholes and thought police, her core politics should remain largely intact. If you think Keynsian economics is the way to go, finding out that all Keynsians are assholes shouldn’t really change your economic theories, should it?

        So, intuitively, it makes sense to me that she should have sought out a kinder, gentler, more rational subset of “the left.”

        But instead, she ran right into the arms of “the enemy” – finding and reveling in the validation.

        If you are raised ultra-orthodox and decide it’s not for you because (and this is true) they’re batshit insane, you don’t switch over to a fundamentalist Baptist. You maybe try Conservative Judaism or, hell, even atheism. But to swing from one extreme is just odd.

        I began to realize, that despite being a hardcore atheist, I had found myself in a fundamentalist cult.

        Hey, look! I just said that!

        But where is the realization that her cult is a niche subset of the whole rather than representative?

        I have found solidarity with ex-Mormons.

        Hey, look! I just made a nearly identical comparison!

        In one year, I have lost 90% of my community in Olympia.

        That’s the key, isn’t it… HER COMMUNITY.

        Because HER COMMUNITY is chock-full of indoctrinated whack-jobs.

        People seek these kinds of communities for mutual validation. They don’t want to be challenged – they want to fit in. Anyone who rocks that boat is going to have a bad time.

        I have been shunned by activists, comedians and gamers. I have never had a turnover like this in my life with the exception of cross-country moves.

        Now, I’ve never been to Olympia.

        I have been to Marin County and spent about a week there with friends getting “the flavor of it.”

        What I can say is that there are people in Marin… MARIN OF ALL PLACES.. who are decent human beings and willing to have a conversation and be humans to each other when they don’t fit into perfect cult-like molds.

        Maybe Olympia is worse. Maybe times have changed. But at the end of the day, this person just needs to find a group of friends who aren’t assholes.

        Another broke up with me because I spoke against Andy Ngo being assaulted and given a TBI and because I followed the wrong people.

        I don’t know what this means, but it sounds like she was dating an asshole.

        (are you sensing a theme here?)

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Proof once again that you can lead a Jackass to water but he might not drink. Instead just standing there on the bank of the river, braying away about how being thirsty is not representative of his entire condition.

          Mathius, my dear lad. YOU HAVE NO IDEA who the left or “liberals” are. It IS YOU WHO IS BLIND, not this lady nor the others who have woken up and moved away. One of my most liberal friends and a loyal Democrat has even admitted this to me. He feels lost at the moment. But of course, he is a sample of one so why should I put any weight on his views.

          You Sir may hang out with those who you and they think are “liberal” and “left”. But those circles are not the people who actually make things happen. They are not the actual “power” within your cohort.

          • It IS YOU WHO IS BLIND

            Then how am I reading this? Huh?!? HUH!!

          • I think what I’d like you – YOU, JAC, YOU – to take away from this is that there are assholes and there are ideologies.

            And this person, and her former friends, are assholes.

            No, maybe you’re right. Maybe that specific demographic are the movers-and-shakers with the liberal / left Democratic party. I won’t speak to that here. I think my disdain of the Democratic party is well established.

            But to claim the mantle THE LEFT as being effectively owned by this minority of fringe lunatics… it’s akin to asserting THE RIGHT is effectively owned by the ::insert radical right organization of choice::.

            You Sir may hang out with those who you and they think are “liberal” and “left”. But those circles are not the people who actually make things happen. They are not the actual “power” within your cohort.

            You may be right that this lunatic and her group is more “powerful” than we moderates.
            And that would give you standing to charge that the Democratic Party – the central political organ of “the left” is corrupted and guilty of such charges as may be pertinent.

            But you don’t get to assert that they define the whole of “liberal ideology” any more than the Westboro Baptist Church gets to define Christianity or the Klan gets to define Conservatism.

            You don’t get to say “you’re not left because I decided that SHE is what left actually means.”

            Or, you know.. you do get to say that, but I don’t have to accept it as Truth.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I did NOT SAY anything. A MEMBER of the LEFT made these statements.

              And you immediately launched one of your “few assholes don’t a group make”. No matter how many member of that group tell you the group is a bunch of “assholes” as you put it.

              It is HER experience Mathius. So of course her views are based on her experience.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              So just HOW MANY of those who self identify as being on the “left” would have to be X before you would admit that group was X???

              Is it 100%. Does the % of those who are the opinion leaders matter? Or just the total number?

              Also please note that per your argument Nazis are not assholes because not all Nazis are assholes. Some are generally nice people.

              • I do not see anything in her comments (admittedly I only read half) which constitutes a policy dispute.

                Her gripe is about general behavior. The left is a group-think cult which punishes apostates and brooks no dissent. That those she considered friends turned on her when she deviated. That the Republicans welcomed her with open arms and revealed themselves not to be the caricatures they were made out to be.

                The closest I see to a legitimate “ISSUE” is her gripe with how the city handles homelessness. To whit, that they failed and were willfully blind to the link between addiction and homelessness.

                I cannot claim to have superior knowledge of the situation on the ground in Olympia. I will admit that I am comparatively uninformed with regard to homelessness and the policy surrounding it. I would be absolutely shocked to find it uncoupled causally (both as a cause and result) of addiction. That and mental illness. I would not at all be surprised to find that their approach is failing or, at best, woefully inadequate.

                And I find, explicitly, her charge that a major failing of the left is that they permit harm to persist in the names of tolerance to be an apt charge – though she failed to develop it sufficiently. I think, in the effort to be “considerate” or PC, the left does – often – turn a blind eye to harsh realities. Hey, guess what, many trans folk are actually just mentally ill attention seekers looking for validation and acceptance that they haven’t found elsewhere. Some are legitimate. But if you listen to “THE POWERS THAT BE” within the leftist circles, such thoughts are verboten. And this is (even it’s not actually her point) a tremendously important and valid criticism of the left writ large.

                But beyond this one issue (I digress to her poing re homelessness) – and a touch on something something gay rights abroad – I don’t see any reason to join the Republicans other than “the people I know who are Democrats were mean to me when I didn’t line up perfectly with their views.”

                That’s like saying “I know I was an Orthodox Jew, but the people in my community were jerks to me when I said that a slightly different color fuzzy hat is acceptable. And so I’ve decided to become a Jehovah’s Witness since they were nice to me when I renounced and told me I can wear whatever color hat I want.” It’s not to say that the latter group might not be a “better fit” or even just “better.” But it’s just an unsupported conversion.

        • (are you sensing a theme here?)

          Yes! That you are defending an ideology and not giving credit to the millions of other similar stories. You shrug everything off as anecdotal but dismiss the reality of the street. You are in your own bubble. Its bigger than this election. The left…the moderate left, is questioning the legitimacy of big government.

          • That you are defending an ideology and not giving credit to the millions of other similar stories.

            Nooooo… BAD ANTIA!

            ::rolls up newspaper::

            You shrug everything off as anecdotal but dismiss the reality of the street.

            I do no such thing!

            I acknowledge that she exists, her experiences are more-or-less accurate as portrayed and that this is no tiny minority.

            In point of fact, as I have said here before, I have actually had a real life brush with one of these people. In college, I held the door for the person behind me, who happened to be female. She got right in my face, stuck her thumbnail toward my eye (a very weird gesture which still gets me today) and told me that if I ever did something like that again, she’d gouge out my eye. Of course, I should have just slugged her or let go of the door and let it hit her, but I was too shocked to even do anything. She walked off, I’m sure, to tell her circle of assholes about how she stuck it to the patriarchy.

            The thing is, I told everyone – everyone – that story (many of whom knew the girl in question ) and not one of them thought she was right. Everyone on this liberal campus in my more-or-less liberal circle of friends, thought she was an asshole and I did nothing wrong.

            It’s not that these things don’t happen. It’s that these people are less “proof that the left is evil” so much as “proof that there are assholes on the left.” A contention I would never refute.

            The left…the moderate left, is questioning the legitimacy of big government.

            No.

            We aren’t.

            That’s where your logical leap falls apart.

            The rejection of “radical assholes” is very valid. As much as you hate this kind of person, believe me we hate them oh, so, very much more.

            But to hop from there are big government assholes to the moderates are therefore questioning the legitimacy of big government is just not supported in this narrative.

            • okaaay. I guess your reply to the linked testimony is correct. I’m telling you that your reply is too narrow. The party left you, is what I’m saying. And the walkaways and blexits are too numerous to just dismiss.

              • The party left you

                Impossible.

                The Party was never with me to begin with.

                I am not a Democrat.

                I think the Democrats are shit.

                The only reason I vote for the Democrats (most of the time) is because the Republicans are even worse.

                I would – I think quite happily – vote for a TRUE CONSERVATIVE over your run of the mill Democrat. Go ahead, let JAC run for office, and I will vote for him with a smile on my face.

  29. What happened to MSU. Rutgers?

  30. Just A Citizen says:
    • I sure hope this gets fully investigated and if there is official wrong doing that the price is paid by the wrong doers and those that abetted the wrong doing. Again, where are the patriots?

      Not sure how much longer I will be on line. They are threatening to pull the plug on us here. The winds are mild at this time. I we go down it may be a day or two before we get restored. They have to do a 100% inspection on the lines before restoring power.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    I love this line:

    “In much the same way that dinosaurs miniaturized to today’s birds, the ancient Democrat solons and media have devolved from positions of respect and power to starlings, annoyingly chirping and scattering guano from their perches.”

  32. I just learned a new word . A breastfeeding group has thrown their support to the trans community over CHESTFEEDING! Hello? What. the. hell?

    And while I’m at it, I’m pissed at the jerk who doxxed the nuns at the Trump rally! Congratulations on your ticket to hell, you dumbass.

    Oh, and SK! Did you know that AOC is the new face of the Catholic community? I mean, they cancelled Kavanaugh and ACB so she gets to be Mother Superior’s wingman. And then the Pope went full potato for same sex civil unions.

    THEY WON’T STOP!!!! 👿

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      The katlick church is well on its way to oblivion at the moment.

      As much as I liked John Paul 2 I have to admit, he was probably as poorly served by underlings as Trump. To come up with this clown as his replacement indicates that the cardinals he put forward were basically all “plants” by the extreme left in the church. So, they recommended them and while John Paul was busy crashing World Communism, they all slipped through.

      Having been educated by the LaSallian Christian Brothers who seemed to be sworn enemies of the Jesuits (Pope Francis is a member) , the comment made by my High Shool Principal, Brother George Berrian, when we were seniors seems apt.

      “There has to be something wrong with a religious order where the pope has to threaten to excommunicate them all twice in every century”.

      So, now we have a Pope endorsing same sex unions (he should have just remained silent on the issue) and who has nominated a Never Trumper in DC as a new Cardinal.

      • Didn’t read past the headlines that the new cardinal is a Never Trumper. Great.

        I was in high school when the John Pauls came through. Wonder how things would have been with the OG John Paul. Also wonder what the real deal is with Benedict. Only 8 years? and he’s still hanging around the Vatican?

        Don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned that my aunt was a nun. Sr Patricia (of the Anita surname), an IHM – Immaculate Heart of Mary, is surely at the right hand of God these days. I’m for sure the black sheep of the extensive family for not practicing.

  33. Thankfully, 2020 is almost over. Let’s hope 2021 doesn’t tell 2020 to “Hold my beer and watch this shit”.

    But we did learn a few things. Nasty man made viruses cause lots of problems and death. But anyone who believes that ANY politician is to blame for the deaths simply don’t know crap about science or medicine. Ignorance will always have a large following.

    MSM, especially the networks, CNN, MSNBC and others, have proven themselves to be in the tank for the Crats. What we have learned is that the Onion and Babylon Bee are more honest that the lot of them. Ignorance will always have a large following.

    Lots of votes have already been cast. Haven’t heard much talk about the enthusiasm that Trump has versus Hiden Joe Biden. But, why would the MSM tell anything truthful.

    Leftist’s attacked Jews for Trump in NYC. Real brave Leftists, ain’t they.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    A prime example of “do not make declarations about things that will obviously change over time”. Many people claimed NZ whipped the virus. As this week they are experiencing a THIRD outbreak. Each time they have to clamp down on everything. Now this does not mean they are completely failing or will fail. It is an ISLAND country and could probably isolate itself until a vaccine arrives. Of course by then their economy will be virtually destroyed.

    https://www.theregreview.org/2020/06/09/parker-lessons-new-zealand-covid-19-success/

    One other note: Despite this authors obvious snark about the US response, which is common among many, the USA did in fact try the STOP IT alternative in the beginning. Which is why Fauci claimed we had it under control. But then it popped up in many places, making “elimination” impossible. That is when Fauci and the Task Force announced we were in a “mitigation” phase.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Rupert Murdoch: Biden wins in landslide.

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rupert-murdoch-fox-news/2020/10/15/id/992102/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=mixi&utm_campaign=newsmax

    Now here is another opinion leader saying Mr. Trump has not followed the expert advice on Covid response when the experts have said he followed EVERY piece of advice they gave him.

    That he would consider supporting Bloomberg is pretty telling in itself. Rich doesn’t mean smart and obviously doesn’t mean principled.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    New polling shows Biden leads in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida AND……………………………………… TEXAS.

    • Yep…that is what it shows.

    • Canine Weapon says:

    • AND……………………………………… TEXAS.

      I’m not sure what polling you’re seeing. There’s an outlier or two with Biden leads, but the preponderance has Trump + 1.3 with the best polling showing Trump +4 or +5. He’s slated to win with 2:1 odds as of today’s betting markets.

      Are you looking at a Survey Monkey poll of registered voters, maybe? They released the same poll same day of likely voters showing Trump + 3 (vs Biden + 1 for registered voters).

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        It was a Dallas and Univ. Texas poll from last week. Published I think Friday or Sat. The left leaning media had it as a headline all weekend. It was a mix of registered and likely voters.

        I see today a new poll has Trump +2 to 4.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    A well made argument about SCOTUS review of Constitutionality. He does miss one very important point. If the Framers did not agree with Marbury they could have quickly ended the Self Proclaimed authority of the Court. But they did not. Jefferson and a few others complained but the majority did not. Of course, as the author notes, the issue of “constitutional” did not come up for a long time after Marbury v. Madison.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/26/the-surprising-reason-were-fighting-over-the-supreme-court-and-how-to-fix-it-432448

    The author is a lawyer with DOD. The article is published by POLITICO. Makes me scratch my head as to what the real motivations are. Maybe you don’t need to pack the court if you think you can establish a very long term majority in Congress and then move the legal review powers to Congress.

  38. Philly cops shoot black man with knife, who was threatening them. Riots ensue. When will the black community teach black men NOT TO ATTACK cops with guns?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Nothing to do with black man or knife anymore. It is akin to “party time is on”. With no consequences, why not riot and loot?

      Everything comes down to human nature and human nature is not generally good in a mob environment. As an individual if I am mad or pissed off or just bored and toss a brick through your window, I know I have 100% culpability and responsibility. If there are nine other poeple doing the same thing, I’ve just reduced my share to 10% which in a less than noble mnd, makes it ok! Based on follow up prosecutions, the government seems to agree.

      • SKT:

        Paragraph 1: Meh.

        Paragraph 2: Right you, sir! (and the inverse is also true)

        Gman:

        A) Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

        B) Notwithstanding the above, and not knowing any specific context of this particular knife-wielding individual and subsequent shooting… I do think the police in this country could do a better job of de-escalating situations. Maybe there was no choice this time. Maybe he was threatening a bystander or some such. I don’t know. But, generally speaking you can keep your distance from a knifist (is that a term?) and tase the guy or try to talk him down rather than (pulls up article… reads.. reads.. reads..) “both officers fired several times.” That’s not to say they were “wrong,” or that they didn’t have a reasonable fear for their safety or that they weren’t “justified” or “legally within their duties,” or anything along those lines… I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I’m not in formed about this instance. It’s just that, often times… these things could be better handled. And I think there’s more to being a good police officer than just “neutralize the threat.”

        • Fine! Let the social workers go out and face their own demise then. That will fix them.

          So then during the riot, a police officer was run over while the crowd cheered. Total of 30 officers injured.

          • Fine! Let the social workers go out and face their own demise then. That will fix them.

            I do think social workers are better equipped for many situations. They’re non-threatening, trained for de-escalation and dealing with mental health concerns, etc.

            A guy with a mental problem seeks a cop, he is very justified in feeling threatened. He’s essentially backed into a corner. Add in “warrior training” or any kind of aggressive escalation tactics, and you’ve basically guaranteed a physical confrontation whose only constraint is the discipline of the police officers.

            Maybe social workers would get hurt. Maybe it makes more sense to pair them up with a cop who hangs back and provides support as needed? I don’t know.

            I wasn’t even really talking about social workers. I was just saying that cops could do a better job of de-escalating. Is that really an objectionable point?

            So then during the riot, a police officer was run over while the crowd cheered. Total of 30 officers injured.

            I fail to see what this has to do with anything I just said..?

            • The cops weren’t escalating anything. They had a line formed on the street. That’s it. Dude with big truck runs right thru the line. Not sure if in the same video or not…not going back to check…but BLM ended up running the cops off by throwing large rock long clubs and whatever else. Not good….move the cops out and its free for all looting.

              • Anita, you seem to be arguing something that I’m not arguing.

                I don’t know what case you’re talking about. I’m not accusing those cops of anything. I’m not even weighing in on this knife-guy. I’m not talking about BLM or rioters or CHAZ or or or.

                All I’m saying is that – GENERALLY SPEAKING – cops could do a better job of de-escalating situations or cutting them off before they become lethal situations.

                Is that really a contentious assertion?

              • You ALWAYS fall back on ‘cops could do a better job’ as though the millions of other cop/civilian encounters per year are anything other than peaceful. When 1 in 10,000 goes bad, its all the cops fault. I call baloney!

              • When 1 in 10,000 goes bad, its all the cops fault. I call baloney!

                I’m really not saying that, Anita.

              • Maybe we should just accept the fact that a small number of people will have a violent reaction to their violent action because they are ignorant. We can medicate the mentally I’ll, but we can’t fix stupid.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          In the Army, in training, one fellow about 5’6″ and maybe 140 lbs received the classic “dear John” letter from the love of his life. He went totally bonkers and it literally took five or six guys, all bigger than him, to hold him down.

          In the few confrontations I have had over the years, I have learned to look at the EYES. For some reason, you can tell whether the person confronting you is on “normal” or “off the wall:” by the look in the eyes. It is one of the things a good cop develops early on. Of course if you are drugged out the eyes will tell that too.

          • He went totally bonkers and it literally took five or six guys, all bigger than him, to hold him down.

            My experience is that “hold him down” kinds of fights where the goal is to minimize harm to the guy take a lot more manpower and effort than a fight to just “put the guy down.” I still remember when they tried to dilate my eyes when I was ~10 and it took a room full of adults to hold my 50lb self down. But any one of them could have easily dropped me like a rock if they’d been so inclined.

            I get this. And I get that if your goal is “restrain him” and his goal is “kill you,” it becomes exceedingly hard and dangerous for you. I am not blind to this.

            Trump got a lot of shit a little while back when he suggested cops shoot people in the legs. Now, I know it’s a harder shot, and it’s not guaranteed to be non-lethal. But, damnit, doesn’t it make more sense? Not when the guy is charging at you and your life is on the line, but if you feel threatened enough that you think it’s almost certainly headed that way? Not as a casual choice, but as a last-ditch option for “I’m going to have to kill this guy if I don’t put a stop to this right this second.” Then, fuck it. He can learn to walk again. He can’t learn to be not-dead.

            Tasers are a thing for a reason. So are beanbag guns. So are rubber bullets. Are they perfect? Nope. But can then end a dangerous situation before it becomes a lethal situation… most of the time..? Yup.

            Alllllll I’m saying is that the order of events should be…. try hard to de-escalate… failing that… try to use nonlethal. Try to avoid letting the situation get to the point where lethal force might be called for. But if lethal does become necessary, well, then, thems the breaks.

            I have learned to look at the EYES. For some reason, you can tell whether the person confronting you is on “normal” or “off the wall:” by the look in the eyes.

            Truth

            I mean, I wouldn’t hold it up as a universal law.. there’s body language and such, too… but crazy eyes are called crazy eyes for a reason.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              It was Biden that made that absolutely ignorant comment and now you just repeated it as though it has any validity.

              The only way to prevent shooting these people is to develop new technology for taking them down.

              • Biden, huh? Go figure. Well, at least I hope you appreciate that I was willing to give Trump credit and agree with him even though I was mistaken. ::shrug::

                ———

                Anyway, I still think shooting someone in the leg is preferable to shooting them in the chest, all things being equal.

                Cops shouldn’t have to die to “be nice” and try not to hurt violent criminals. But they should still make every reasonable and plausible efforts (A) to not let it get to that point and (B) to end the situation nonlethally. Both to the maximal extent possible.

                A broken leg can heal. A taser only lasts so long. A broken rib will heal. Being dead won’t.

                And you should try not to set people up for failure. Aggressive escalation backs people who are already on edge into a corner and increases the odds of violence. This isn’t rocket science – you know it’s true. The role of the police isn’t to kill criminals. They should be actively trying not to kill people to the greatest extent possible.

                The only way to prevent shooting these people is to develop new technology for taking them down.

                We have some tools.

                There could be better tools.

                We have to work with what we have.

  39. Texas Governor Greg Abbott on local TV this morning letting Texans know that nothing changes with a Biden/Harris administration. Do not worry about fracking in Texas…there are no Federal lands.
    Do not worry about logging in Texas, it is privately owned land or Texas Parks Land.
    Do not worry about covid masking in Texas, we consider it a state issue.
    Do not worry about the 1 kilometer issue of the Texas southern border with Mexico….Texas is the only state that has sovereignty over its border area except for the National Defense Zone which is leased back to the United States on continuous 99 year leases.
    Do not worry about wind power as Texas is the largest wind producing state.
    Do not worry about higher utility prices as Texas has its own power grid and sells power to surrounding states. It is the only state that does this.
    Do not worry about minimum wage issues as it is a State issue except for Federal employees located in Texas.
    Do not worry about a State income Tax.
    Do not worry about the Bureau of Land management or regulation over rivers, lakes, and waterways within the boundaries of Texas as there are no Federal Lands. When Texas became a State, one of the agreements with the United States at the time was that Texas maintains its own jurisdiction over all boundaries and waterways and land management.
    Do not worry about losing your weapons. The last mandate under Bill Clinton did not work and it will not work again.

    The things that you do have to worry about with a Biden/Harris administration…increased taxes on the middle class, loss of private health insurance, increased capital gains taxes, increased death taxes, increased gasoline taxes, and a Covid tax on personal income. Wall street and corporations will be exempt from the Covid Texas because of their donor base. You will have to worry about more mandated health taxes and increased SSN taxes. You will have to worry about the loss of deductions on a personal level. Wall Street and Corporations will be able to keep their deductions because of the donor base but look for a sunset of mortgage interest rate deductions and loan interest deductions on a personal level.

    He closed by assuring everyone that Texas will not close down….never again. We will not ever again wreck our economy over a “stupid virus” (his words).

    • Are y’all not aware that you’re a state and not a sovereign nation?

      • They are a sovereign state.

      • RUT ROH……seems there is a problem with the homeless that are out on the streets in freezing weather and the Covid restrictions in some states

        • OOps did not finish this…..thbe Covid restrictions in some states prevents bynching them together,,,,,,what to do….what to do….

          • Maybe start by defining “bynching”?

            Assuming you mean “bunching,” Mathius suggestion is to stack a whole bunch of shipping containers.. $2k a pop give or take. Done.

      • Are y’all not aware that you’re a state and not a sovereign nation? In our hearts and minds, we are a sovereign Nation …….according the the Federal Government we are a state…..an independent state.

        Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question…that could become real. Let is take fracking as an example. In West Texas, we have large field….supposedly a larger yield than that of the Saudi’s….it is shale sand. Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden tries to extend the no fracking to private land……(thus far it is Federal lands only, but Harris is on record as stating it is a mandate throughout)…So….Texas says…up yours, we will frack and we will sell it anywhere that we can….What do you do to enforce a mandate? Send Federal troops?

        We stood firm on voting ID’s and we stood firm on ballot boxes and our governor will stand firm on the Covid masking and not shut the state down again…..so WHAT DO YOU DO? What, in actuality, do you do? I mean, on the ground, in real life. How do you enforce anything without Federal Troops?

        Cut off our funding? ok…..we do not care about that. Because that works both ways. You cut off our funding, we cut off paying sales and use tax and Federal gasoline taxes. We have out own refineries and we have out own sea ports..

        We have the capability to shut the Southern border…..we have an army large enough…so….what do you do? Just curious.

        • So….Texas says…up yours, we will frack and we will sell it anywhere that we can….What do you do to enforce a mandate? Send Federal troops?

          Well, first, let’s answer the question of “what hat is Mathius wearing in this scenario?”

          AG MATHIUS wants to know whether the feds have the right to make this assertion. He wants to litigate it through the courts, duly and fairly try it. If, indeed, the power is within the scope of the due authority and Texas is simply balking extrajudicially, he would advocate for sending in the troops.

          JUSTICE Mathius, JUROR Mathius, and President Mathius are all in accord on this.

          EPA and BLM (not that BLM.. the other one) Secretary Mathius would probably hop straight for fines and penalties. When you didn’t pay, we’d assess fines on top of fines and surcharges until you are bankrupt. You, of course, might balk at paying, but we’ll just seize your assets in the banks. You might sue, but we have deeeep pockets. And we’ll beg AG Mathius to back us up, which he may or may not do depending on the legal framework in place.

          PRESIDENT Mathius would probably come down on the side of the EPA and BLM because – at the end of the day – you are not above the law. But he would also work to find a way to legally and morally disincentivize you from doing a thing he doesn’t want you to do. Perhaps this might be subsidies for solar or other sustainables which shift the economic incentives. Or perhaps, as interstate commerce is very much within the wheelhouse of the federal government, I’ll simply tax the everliving shit out of your exports. Who knows? What I do know, however, is that if you are legally in open defiance of the courts – that they have ruled against you and you are openly balking at the due authority of the superior laws of the federal government and its agencies, that there is called rebellion, and we have ways of dealing with that.

          How do you enforce anything without Federal Troops?

          “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” – Isaac Asimov

          In the view of PRESIDENT Mathius, the use of federal troops is the last resort when the rule of law has broken down and an openly defiant entity – be it a state, or town, or mob – requires the exercise of such force to reassert the authority of the rule of law.

          For example, the Little Rock Nine is a good case study. The LAW was unambiguous. The state simply chose to defy it. That cannot stand.

          Right or wrong, come hell or high weather, as the PRESIDENT, the obligation must be to uphold the legal framework or we are nothing but anarchy operating under a pretext. (insert counter-arguments here about how the Holocaust was legal and the underground railroad was illegal).

          I, PRESIDENT Mathius, would exercise every conceivable option to get you to back down and accept the law – including a truly fair and open dialog to convince me that I’m wrong. But at the end of the day, what the courts determine to be the law MUST be upheld as the law. And that means that, if I need to put the boot down, you’re gonna get the boot.

          Cut off our funding? ok…..we do not care about that. Because that works both ways. You cut off our funding, we cut off paying sales and use tax and Federal gasoline taxes. We have out own refineries and we have out own sea ports..

          War is just diplomacy by other means.

          So, too, is what you propose.

          There are many levers I can pull and many buttons I can push. There are carrots and sticks aplenty.

          If it takes a carrot to get you in line… well, I don’t love that.. I dislike rewarding bad behavior.. but I’m a realist, and sometimes such is life.

          If it takes a stick to get you in line, well, so be it. Bad behavior gets bad consequences. That’s how we learn.

          But if you try reprisals… illegal reprisals… well that’s just more bad behavior and that will beget more negative consequences.

          As the hegemonic power, I the federal authority, cannot tolerate such a challenge to my authority. I cannot be blackmailed or assailed extrajudicially.

          If you have a legal leg to stand on, and you believe you are exempt from such taxes, well, go ahead… file in court and if you win, you win. Thems the breaks. But if you just “don’t pay up,” I can’t tolerate that.

          —————-

          It’s like having kids. If you set a rule and they find a clever way around it, well… sometimes that’s just how it goes. But if you say “it’s bedtime now. Go to bed,” and they just flat out say “no,” or say “ok, but I’m not going to do my chores tomorrow,”…. well, as a parent – as the authority – you cannot let that stand or you sacrifice the absolutism of your authority, you sacrificed the rule of law in your household.

          You have to do everything you can, everything within your power, to try to avoid letting it come to force. If I have to pick my kid up and drag her, kicking and screaming into her room, that’s a loss. That tells my kids that they don’t need to listen to -me- but rather that they need to obey simply because I am stronger. That says “strength is my authority” as opposed to “my authority is intrinsic.” Even if I “win,” it’s at best a pyrrhic victory. But I – MUST – win if the stakes are my authority.

          If the stakes are “they get an extra cookie,” well, you can win some or lose some. And, as a parent, you’ve got to take a dive here and there or it’s just oppressive fascism. But when it comes to open defiance, when their appeals to mom have run dry, and even Nana won’t grant a reprieve, if you let them get away with it, the rule of law is dead. And all their forty-nine siblings are going to smell blood in the water.

          ———————

          Trying to put it in Colonely terms.. not that this would ever happen…

          If you give an order to an underling and he (after asking for permission to beg and it being granted) says “pretty please don’t make me,” and after laughing so hard you cause a hernia, you grant the request, well… ok then.

          If you give the instruction and, somehow, he bumps into a general immediately after who countermands the instruction, well… ok then.

          If you give the instruction and he runs to the JAG and says “I think this is illegal” and wins… well… ok then.

          But if he just says “no”? Or if he says “ok, but I’m not going to report for duty tomorrow.” Ha!

          It wouldn’t matter even if he’s right in some context of it being a bad instruction or not his job or inappropriate or or or… at the moment he balks at your authority, you have no options but to assert your authority. Defiance of your colonely authority cannot be tolerated. It simply cannot.

          That’s how it is. The Feds are the higher law. That’s it. They’re the colonels and you’re the majors. And you can do everything you want within the appropriate legal frameworks and structures. But the second you defy the authority of the colonel, you’re gonna have a bad time.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Found this in a CNN story about Federal Judge denying DOJ ability to defend Mr. Trump in a defamation case:

    “In a 61-page opinion, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump “is not an ’employee of the Government,’ as Congress defined that term,” and therefore the lawsuit isn’t, as the Justice Department argued, against the United States.”

    I tend to agree that DOJ should not be defending Govt. folks over litigation not related to their jobs, but I find this “logic” by the judge to be very strange. Given how the parties are always claiming that POTUS’s job is so important as the extension of the US, especially abroad. Given this argument the DOJ could not defend any appointee, despite their employment. Let alone that POTUS is paid a salary. And 61 pages to say NO. For crying out loud!

    • I tend to agree that DOJ should not be defending Govt. folks over litigation not related to their jobs, but I find this “logic” by the judge to be very strange.

      Without having read the ruling, I generally agree.

      Let alone that POTUS is paid a salary.

      I mean, the alternative would be to suggest that he’s not an employee because he’s an owner (eg a partner at a law firm isn’t an employee of that firm… likewise, I’m sure, you’re not an employee of your own farm). But this seems a huge stretch to me.

      And 61 pages to say NO. For crying out loud!

      Ehhh… that’s just par for the course.

      They’ve got to establish competent jurisdiction, dispense with motions, yada yada yada.. the actual ruling-ruling will be only a few paragraphs if you can find it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I am beginning to think that a better job for you in my Administration would be a seat on the Court rather than trying to gain control of our money printing. SCOTUS Mathius would be a good choice, if he can keep all those other voices in his head contained.

        • I think SCOTUS Mathius would be a good ally of the JAC administration even though it would severely piss off CIVILIAN Mathius.

          That guy is well to the right of Renquist.

    • Alright… reading… reading…..

      Some lady accused Trump of raping her..

      She puts out a book some years later and repeats the claim…

      Trump calls her a liar and insults her a bit and calls her an operative of the DNC…

      She sues for defamation..

      AG applies the Westfall act to try to substitute the US government for Trump as the defendant. This allows the AG to assert (though it is not definitive) that he was acting within his capacity as an employee of the government when he made those statements.. and that, therefore, he’s covered. If so, then the US becomes the defendant.

      This is, for example, if the IRS makes a mistake on your form, you can’t sue Bob the Processor.. or you can, but the US government will force it into federal court and substitute themselves for Bob since he was just doing his job at the time.

      Ok… anyway… carrying on…

      So, I guess, the question is “was he an employee of the federal government” at the time? Actually, well, no… that’s not really the question. The question is AS DEFINED IN THE ACT, was he an employee.

      “‘Employee of the government’ includes (1) officers or employees of any federal
      agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation, and (2) any officer or employee of a Federal public defender organization, except when such officer or employee performs professional services in the course of providing representation under section 3006A of title 18.”

      The term “federal agency” also is defined by Section 2671:

      “‘Federal agency’ includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not include any contractor with the United States.”

      Soo… digging a bit deeper, the question is actually is the office of POTUS a “federal agency.”

      Which translates to… is the Office of POTUS an “executive department”?

      Which is not defined… so the court goes digging and comes up with this:

      At the outset, it is apparent that this definition does not include the entire executive branch. Although Congress referred to “the executive departments,” the fact that the phrase is plural makes clear that Congress did not mean “the executive branch.” Congress knew how to refer to an entire branch of government, as evidenced by the fact that the very next words of the statute are “the judicial and legislative branches.” The plain meaning of this language is that members of Congress, federal judges, and the staffs of both all are included in the term “federal agency.” But the entire executive branch is not. Only those parts of the executive branch that fall within the other terms of the definition are included.

      Which, I find to be unsupported conjecture.

      If anything, it appears to be silent on the point. As though by listing parts of the Executive, they expressly imply (SCOTUS Mathius hates “implications” within text) that it is not intended to apply to the whole. Rather, it appears silent on the point.

      The judge seems to take from the idea “Congress knew how to refer to an entire branch of government” as intent that meant the inverse. But I might point at SCOTUS rulings on 2A where the argument “Congress knew how to refer to all guns” holds no such “implied” meaning. (to wit, that by qualifying the right to bear arms with the need for a militia, they are NOT limiting the textual meaning unless they do so expressly. Likewise, without expressly excluding POTUS, the failure to be clear about his inclusion is at best silence on the point, but certainly not an implied exclusion.)

      Rather, SCOTUS Mathius reads that – as a plain text meaning, though not specifically enumberated and itemized, that the President is an officer within a plaintext reading of the meaning. As this is not explicitly defined, we must rely on common language.

      Now there are a few things that bear noting from this point on:

      Although the government asserts that the president is covered by the Westfall Act, its five page memorandum in support of its motion neither cites to Section 2671 nor argues that either of the plausibly relevant terms applies to the president.52

      You have got to be kidding me if you are trying to assert that your guy is covered and you don’t make any argument pointing at the actual legislative text. It is not the job of the court to make your case for you.

      Perhaps this is less a failure of the court than of the AG to make his case. “Hey, my guy is covered because I say so” is hardly definitive. If the court doesn’t buy your assertion-without-evidence, is it the court’s fault for failing to side with you?

      And then there’s this nugget:

      Of course, one of the best ways to understand what Congress meant by “federal agency” is to examine how it used that term. The definition applies to Sections 1346(b) and 2401(b), to which it refers specifically, as well as the remaining sections of the Act of June 25, 1948, which are codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2672-2680. Six of these eleven statutory sections use the term “federal agency.” And four of them53
      suggest strongly that the term applies to what one ordinarily thinks of as a federal agency or executive department: a unit of government housed within the executive branch, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of State, or the Central Intelligence Agency,54
      and not a single constitutional officer, the president. The statutes likewise make clear in several ways that “federal agency” does not refer to the executive branch as a whole or to any particular unit of the executive branch of which the president is an “officer,” if any such unit existed.

      To which JUSTICE Mathius retorts “oh, fuck off with that bullshit.”

      If you can’t be bothered to define your terms, I’m going to read them at face value. It is not the job of the court to read tea leaves and try to “figure out” what you meant based on how you used the term elsewhere.

      “suggest strongly” and “implies” have no fucking place in jurisprudence.

      ————

      Conclusion: Though Mathius (the author of this post) is not a lawyer and merely plays one on TV, he finds that the Justice ruled in error. Ordinary course would be to slate it for appeal, but we have decided instead to tar and feather the justice and then slate it for appeal.

      JUSTICE Mathius hereby overrules Judge Kaplan and (begrudgingly) grants the US government authority to substitute itself for plaintiff DJT in this defamation suit.

      Were it within JUSTICE Mathius’ purview, he would also throw out the defamation suit, as it is bullshit. But that was not the question at hand.

      • Apologies for the messed up blockquotes.

        And a correction: “JUSTICE Mathius hereby overrules Judge Kaplan and (begrudgingly) grants the US government authority to substitute itself for plaintiff defendant DJT in this defamation suit.”

        —————–

        I suppose it’s also worth noting that I made no consideration of whether he was acting in his capacity “as President” while criticizing the plaintiff.

        In reviewing the Westfall Act, I see that this would protect an IRS worker who made a mistake at his job, but it wouldn’t protect him from suits unrelated to the due execution of his position.

        That is, there are two prongs: (A) that you are covered and (B) that your actions are part of the job.

        So another question that might be asked is “was it Trump, The President” who allegedly defamed the plaintiff or “was it Trump, the civilian” who did so.

        JUSTICE Mathius finds no clear textual answer to this question.

        It is tempting to find that – as a political position – the President in attacking his critics is, of course, protecting his political capital and, in a very real sense, doing his job as he sees it. I would be loath to insert myself into the role of the President to draw demarcations on this point on his behalf. And to do so is, I think, beyond the scope of the Judiciary Branch entirely.

        It is similarly tempting to define the role of President more narrowly to just the enumerated duties. But, since this is not defined textually, we are forced to accept a “common sense” reality that the duties of the Presidency scope well beyond those narrow tasks. Having so opened the door, and so failed to limit it, we are forced to accept any assertion made by the AG’s office as to whether an action by the President is so-covered.

        Still, this lays the precedent that all actions – rightful or wrongful – performed by the President in furtherance of his political agenda are necessary “duties of the office” and consequently covered by Westfall. This renders him personally un-suable and places the federal government in the untenable position of having to issue him de facto blanket indemnity to any action he deems covered.

        HOWEVER, it is not the place of this court to determine outcomes first and reason backward. I mark this as an objectionable outcome which needs legislative remediation and clarification.

        HOWEVER, as the text offers no such clarifications of the political class, this court must accept the conclusion that protecting his image and defaming his critics is an action he takes in furtherance of his political agenda and therefore is an action in furtherance of his duties. A President cannot, for instance, push a policy agenda if he is unable to preserve political capital.

        THEREFORE, the court rules that (B) it was PRESIDENT Trump (not CIVILIAN Trump) who so defamed the defendant and that (A) he was and is an OFFICER of a FEDERAL AGENCY.

        May God have mercy on us all.

      • Ugh… I can’t get these HTML tags to behave!

        ———–

        Apologies for the messed up blockquotes.

        And a correction: “JUSTICE Mathius hereby overrules Judge Kaplan and (begrudgingly) grants the US government authority to substitute itself for plaintiff defendant DJT in this defamation suit.”

        —————–

        I suppose it’s also worth noting that I made no consideration of whether he was acting in his capacity “as President” while criticizing the plaintiff.

        In reviewing the Westfall Act, I see that this would protect an IRS worker who made a mistake at his job, but it wouldn’t protect him from suits unrelated to the due execution of his position.

        That is, there are two prongs: (A) that you are covered and (B) that your actions are part of the job.

        So another question that might be asked is “was it Trump, The President” who allegedly defamed the plaintiff or “was it Trump, the civilian” who did so.

        JUSTICE Mathius finds no clear textual answer to this question.

        It is tempting to find that – as a political position – the President in attacking his critics is, of course, protecting his political capital and, in a very real sense, doing his job as he sees it. I would be loath to insert myself into the role of the President to draw demarcations on this point on his behalf. And to do so is, I think, beyond the scope of the Judiciary Branch entirely.

        It is similarly tempting to define the role of President more narrowly to just the enumerated duties. But, since this is not defined textually, we are forced to accept a “common sense” reality that the duties of the Presidency scope well beyond those narrow tasks. Having so opened the door, and so failed to limit it, we are forced to accept any assertion made by the AG’s office as to whether an action by the President is so-covered.

        Still, this lays the precedent that all actions – rightful or wrongful – performed by the President in furtherance of his political agenda are necessary “duties of the office” and consequently covered by Westfall. This renders him personally un-suable and places the federal government in the untenable position of having to issue him de facto blanket indemnity to any action he deems covered.

        HOWEVER, it is not the place of this court to determine outcomes first and reason backward. I mark this as an objectionable outcome which needs legislative remediation and clarification.

        HOWEVER, as the text offers no such clarifications of the political class, this court must accept the conclusion that protecting his image and defaming his critics is an action he takes in furtherance of his political agenda and therefore is an action in furtherance of his duties. A President cannot, for instance, push a policy agenda if he is unable to preserve political capital.

        THEREFORE, the court rules that (B) it was PRESIDENT Trump (not CIVILIAN Trump) who so defamed the defendant and that (A) he was and is an OFFICER of a FEDERAL AGENCY.

        May God have mercy on us all.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You got me ROTFLMAO this afternoon. A good break after shoveling snow and ice from the little storm which passed through Thursday/Friday.

        If the Executive who is IN CHARGE of a Federal Agency/Dept is not part of that Dept then how could he/she bin in charge? That is how I look at that whole thing.

        As for why Congress wrote it the way they did. Let me speculate. Most acts dealing with liabilities and litigation of govt. agencies refer to agencies and departments. Not branches but obviously agencies and departments all occur with on one of the three branches.

        Now let me add one more thing. In recent years, after several people died in a fire in the Methow Valley, Washington, the Govt. decided (I do not know who but suspect DOJ) they would not defend Govt. Employees sued for deaths which occurred as a result of them doing their job. If in the eyes of the DOJ they made a mistake. Thus they hung a young Fire Engine Boss out to dry when parents sued the Govt. for wrongful death.

        Notice that this would change the outcome of the example you gave with the IRS. But to my knowledge the rule was not applied to other agencies. Only those that were involved in fire fighting and emergency response. We had to purchase private liability insurance for my wife so that she could do her JOB per her JOB DESCRIPTION without creating an unbearable financial risk to our family.

        • I’m glad I could give you a laugh… I spent waaay too much time on that.

          … I’ll be waiting on that appointment, Mr. JAC.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        On a more serious note. Per the judges ruling the job of POTUS is now subject to all kinds of PERSONAL law suits while holding the office. Making lawfare a political weapon of choice. States could sue POTUS on issues that the court deemed “not part of his/her job” and thus not protected.

        So yes, may God have mercy upon us.

        P.S. I also think the defamation case is BS. It should have been tossed.

  41. Just A Citizen says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Some more. Note how many cases of deploying less than lethal force. Kind of refutes your belief that many/most police go to lethal first without trying to de-escalate.

      This research identified a phenomenon that the researchers refer to as a “Force Deficit.” This refers to the common scenario in which officers used repeated applications of force that were insufficient to subdue a resisting suspect. When examining conflicts at the event level, this research focused on TASER’s ability to end officer-suspect confrontations. A total of 2,395 use-of-force reports indicated conflict ended at the first “iteration” (the officers’ first application of force). In the first iteration, TASER’s were deployed 2,113 times. Out of these deployments, 1,459 ended the conflict at the first TASER application (69-percent success rate); chemical agents had a 65-percent success rate; impact weapons had a 45-percent success rate at the first iteration; takedown had a 42-percent success rate; and compliance holds had a 16-percent success rate. These findings suggest that the use of decisive force with the TASER early on in active suspect resistance is more likely than other less-lethal weapons to end the conflict quickly and thereby reduce the likelihood of additional injuries, whose rates increase as second and third applications of force (iterations) are applied. Probably the most surprising finding of this study was the value of the police working dog. For the first time, the impact of a K9 team as a deterrent and force option were measured. At the first application of force, police dogs were more successful at ending the conflict than either a TASER or a chemical agent. Implications are drawn for future research and the temporal analysis of law enforcement and suspect confrontations. 50 tables, 16 figures, and 29 references

      • Kind of refutes your belief that many/most police go to lethal first without trying to de-escalate.

        I think you need to read this sentence again:

        I do think the police in this country could do a better job of de-escalating situations.

        Take a second.

        Read it again.

        Roll it around in your head.

        Say the words aloud.

        What do they mean?

        Do they mean that many/most police go to lethal without trying to de-escalate? Or do they mean they could do better?

        If your daughter got B’s in school and you told her that she needs to try harder and do better, does that mean that you think she’s not trying? Does that mean you think she’s getting D’s?
        Does that mean that she isn’t doing her homework and paying attention? Or just that you think she could do better if she tried harder and maybe deployed some different strategies?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Your assertion is not supported by the information presented. That does not change no matter how many time I repeat your assertion.

          I cannot help but notice that your argument rests on the idea that it would only take one or a few to qualify as “doing better”. While you claim that “only a few” is not an example of a larger group’s behavior.

          Look, we all wish there were no deaths in encounters with police. Most of us in this country recognize that sometimes Cops screw up and use violence or kill when not necessary. But police are humans, just as are the criminals which cause the police to act in the first place.

          But I also think that your view of needed police improvements are not based on knowledge of what has been going on for many years. That is regarding new methods, procedures, tactics and policies.

          Remember your own admonishment regarding “leftists”. Just because you see those cops who fail, or sometimes only appear to fail, does not mean that is the majority situation.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    Scientifically speaking I agree with the assertion that more prescribed fire is needed.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/927901189/experts-to-western-states-time-to-finally-fight-wildfires-with-more-fire

    But there are a couple of things we should consider first.

    1. SMOKE. This is a political issue as well as a potential health issue. How many months of the year are people willing to keep eating smoke?

    2. Given the acres burned over the past ten years I am having trouble grasping the how the lack of fire is causing such major increases in fuel loading. Especially in California. The exception is the forest types. Where beetles and disease are causing mortality that is not being removed by salvage and thus fuel loading is increasing. Both in the canopy and on the ground.

    3. Most of the actual conflict between wildfire and people is what we call the “Urban Interface”. That is where people have built homes in the rural areas surrounded by fuel. Prescribed burning open areas is one thing. Burning around homes is another.

    • Surprisingly, the answer may be “wolves.”

      Wolves serve two functions within the ecosystem.

      A) First, what’s called trophic cascade. That is to say that they have a sort of waterfall effect on all levels of the food web. They eat the large prey and control the mesopredators which helps balance the ecosystem. In particular, managing the foragers prevents overgrazing and allows moss to break down logs faster. The reduction of mesopredators (think mid-level predators) like coyotes allows for the growth of smaller foragers like mice and chipmunks which also help consume and break down dead forest growth. They will also help consume insects like Japanese beetle.

      B) Wolves will help deter people from moving into these areas. They will also occasionally consume such humans, reducing the “urban interface.” This is unquestionably a good thing.

      • raptors……you are always leaving my raptors out of the mix………sigh.

      • We already have mountain lions, now you want wolves too. I hear the coyotes at night so I know they are around as well.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Good grief. You getting your info from Robert Kennedy Jr. these days?

        WOLVES will NOT solve the problem. In fact they will make it worse by reducing DEER populations. Deer eat BROWSE species, as in shrubs and forbs which are part of the lower canopy fuel loading. Deer have similar feeding habits as goats, although not as all consuming. Goats are used to create fuel breaks and reduce understory fuels/vegetation.

    • JAC, we have had some very dry years in the last decade. The rains went north of us into you area. As a result, we have a lot of dead trees in the woods.

      One thing this report seems to overlook is that prescribed burns are not done in the hot dry months but in the off (wet) season. During this time, many of the fire fighters are idle as are many of the prison laborers that are used to fight fires. Also, the logging companies can contribute. Instead of paying a fee for their logging permit, they could clear so many acres. Logging improves the ability to fight the fires by thinning, adding breaks and keeping the logging roads open. There has been a significant decrease in the logging since I moved to CA 28 years ago.

      In CA, they are constantly broadcasting PSAs about clear space. I think this is wasted money. It would be better to have an inspector come around every few years and give home owners in the urban interface pointers on how to improve their property. This also could be done as part of your home owners insurance. My insurance has skyrocketed in the last few years. Many around here can’t even get insurance.

      When we built our barn, the permit department worried about snow load, wind, earthquake and fire. Of the four, fire is the one I worry about since it rarely snows at this elevation, winds for this Midwesterner are a joke, and we live on a rocky ridge not in the mud flats of the valley so quakes are not a real concern. For fire, though all we needed was level driveway. I put rainbirds through the peak of the barn anyway. I can water the roof by simply hooking up a hose.

      Climate change is the least of our worries with respect to these fires. I can live with smoke in the off season if it reduces the likelihood of a wild fire rage through the area.

      On a side note our power went out a 4 pm on Sunday and came back on at 1:30 pm Monday. The winds here were only moderate, nothing to be worried about. Winds were stronger down in the valley and on the crest of the Sierras.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        T-Ray

        Safe Space does work, but it will not work alone. Replacement of shake roofs is essential. So is fireproofing soffits and chimneys to prevent embers from entering the roof or house interior. Structures close to the house have to have the same fireproofing.

        It has been proven in other major fires that the number of homes surviving the fire goes way, way up when these things are done. And for sure your sprinkler system will help as well.

        One thing to keep in mind though. Wells require electricity. And power is often lost during major fires. Which means your sprinklers may not work long before the fire gets close.

        I argued years ago to let Insurance Companies deal with this risk. I, and others, lost and the Congress allocated money to be spent on individual home Safe Space via allocation to the States for the Fire Wise and other such programs.

        Also, when there is a large volume of dead trees in the forest canopy you cannot fix it with prescribed fires. You have to remove the dead first. Logging heaven forbid. Then you can do the burning. Otherwise the fire will get into the overstory and if the volume of standing dead is high enough it can carry the fire in the crowns or at least cause more green trees to die due to heat from burning snags.

        The more drought the more the need to stay on top of fuel loading, especially in the understory. Given the size of your annual grasslands, and their proximity to forests I don’t know how you could ever used prescribed fire to have a truly significant impact. The dead annual grass would need to be burned right away once it cured. That would be June or July. So this leaves removing the brush so that fire suppression like retardant can be more effective.

        • Many of the ranchers grade an 8′ dirt trail along their fence lines as a grassland fire break.

          I had a lot of dead and down on my property that I cleaned up last spring. I still have a lot to go but the place is a lot cleaner that it was. I keep the grass cut short. It browns out in the summer so I do not have to mow it. We are on irrigation water here so do not have a well. I suppose it will lose pressure if a fire comes through. I did have a 26K gal pool when we moved in but the liner went bad and I never replaced it. It would be nice to have an overhead tank as a reserve. With my wife being an invalid, my first responsibility is to get her out of harms way. I don’t have shake roofs, they are all standard fiberglass shingles. Also I have no brush next to the buildings. I do have lots of oaks some of which overhang the house and would be a problem in a crown fire.

  43. Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar states with bold confidence that the majority of the citizens in Minneapolis do not trust the Minneapolis police department. She continues by stating that Joe Biden will be responsive to policy positions and again calls to ‘dismantle’ police:

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN-05) was unable to provide details on who will respond to violent crimes in her city without a police force, but said the Minneapolis Police Department is “rotten to the root” during a Sunday interview.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar announced four bills designed to address police accountability, governmental response, and economic relief for impacted communities.The first bill, the National Police Misuse of Force Investigation Board Act, will establish a new federal agency to investigate deaths related to police presence. The agency would conduct independent investigations related to deaths occurring in police custody, officer-involved shootings, and use of force that result in severe bodily injury.
    The second bill, called the Bill to Criminalize Police Violence Against Protesters, will allow an officer who kills or causes bodily harm to a civilian while responding to a protest to be charged with a federal crime.
    The third bill Omar introduced is the Amending the Insurrection Act, which will curtail President Donald Trump’s ability to deploy the military domestically without congressional consent.
    The fourth and final bill Omar announced is the Federal Relief Fund, which will create an emergency relief fund to serve communities trying to rebuild after social and civil rights cases. Cities and businesses would be able to apply for grants to get them back on their feet.
    ———————

    the new face of the left speaks again.

  44. Just A Citizen says:
    • Scot Adams says lies but his lies are directionally correct. That is there is a grain of truth to them. The Dems lie to be deceitful.

  45. I would like to know how the left thinks that the virus can be controlled.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    If you like the other lawsuit, ruling, you are going to just love this motion for Barrett to recuse herself.

    https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/27/county-election-board-makes-motion-for-justice-barrett-to-recuse-herself-from-pennsylvania-case-n270655

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    I can’t express how I feel about Chuck Schumer because the Secret Service would show up on my porch. Here is one of his latest rants:

    ““The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority,” Schumer said.”

    So let us take that wake back in time machine for a moment and check out how we got here.

    Harry Reid and others standing on the floor of the Senate accusing certain R’s of Tax Evasion and other crimes. Aiming personal attacks at not only POTUS candidates from the floor but opposing party Senators. Note: This resulted in a death by duel and a caning last time it happened.

    It was Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, among all the D’s, which used their majority last time to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees. The R’s begged them not to do it and warned of the consequences.

    It was the D’s who began the warfare over SCOTUS nominees. Two of the sleaziest Senators to ever walk were the ring leaders (Biden and Kennedy). It was the D’s who having a majority refused to vote on a Republican nominee for SCOTUS in an election year, using timing as an excuse. Note: They should have just said we do not consent instead of trying to make new precedent. Then when the R’s get the chance they do exactly the same thing. Reminding the D’s of their arguments last time (Sir Biden was included in that repertoire of stupid things said). So here we are and the D’s are now screaming that the R’s did what they wanted to do last time. Appoint a Justice in an election year. But you see, they did not hold the majority that time.

    So now we return to present day. WHO is it that upset the rules of the Senate? Who is it that has destroyed the decorum of the Senate? How exactly is it the Republicans that have caused all this and why is it they who gave up any right to complain?

    Chuck Schumer is a lying, stinking, repugnant, obnoxious and vile jackass. Unfortunately he is not the only one of these types in the Congressional herd.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is a press release from the White House:

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-6bc5-d2df-adff-6fdfff5c0000

    Here is Politico headline relating to the same press release:

    “White House science office takes credit for ‘ending’ pandemic as infections mount”

    Here is some of the Politico verbiage in the story:

    “The White House’s science policy office on Tuesday ranked “ending the Covid-19 pandemic” atop the list of President Donald Trump’s top first-term accomplishments, even as the country registers record amounts of infections and hospitals fill up again.”

    Now, am I the only one who does NOT see the bullet headlines as actual accomplishments being listed? Would not any reasonable person consider the bold headlines as more like the goals? I mean look at the others, especially the last two.

  49. I just caught the end of Bobulinski’s 45 minute interview on the Biden’s family dealings with foreign countries.

    I will have to watch the whole thing, but damn, the last few minutes were damning.

  50. Just A Citizen says:
    • I wonder how many politicians in DC are doing the same thing? This may be finally opening the door to expose the corruption, by both sides. If it starts with Biden, then the Swamp is next, I hope.

    • Mathius, this individual claims that she is collecting 7000 ballots all geared towards one party. It involves coercion and bribery. 7000 is enough to turn an election. We saw the same thing in Minnesota with the Ilhan group plus the confession of the guy in NJ. It seems the fraud exists if you actually look for it instead of burying your head in the sand.

      • Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe

        That should read: “Known liar and fraudster with a well established history of deceptively editing “sting” videos to misleadingly show smear Democrats, James O’Keefe, […]”

        I’ll agree that 7k ballots is enough to swing an election.

        And I’ll agree that the video looks pretty bad.

        And I’ll agree that there are shitbags who would do – and probably are doing – this kind of thing.

        But James O’Keefe is a known liar and fraudster and has ZERO credibility.

        I, therefore, reject your “evidence.”

        If you would like to present better evidence, I am happy to consider it.

        • The Left always slimes their political enemies, especially those that expose them for the cheating bastards that they are. You are so brainwashed by the Liberal media it’s impossible not to notice.

        • Once again I think you have swallowed the MSM pablum. Prove that O’Keefe is lying. You are making the claim, it is up to you to provide the proof.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Known liar according to people who do not particularly like him. Based on your criteria all major news outlets are also “known liars”.

        • Pretty slick scheme you have. You agree to this, this, and this, but reject the evidence. But the ones who are credible in your view won’t report on it. Zero sum. You win. Fraudsters win. USA loses. That sucks.

  51. Texas has deployed its National guard to all major cities…starting today.

  52. A cop in Florida was recently disciplined for wearing a pro-Biden face mask while on duty in a polling place.

    The assertion is that (A) you’re not allowed such signage while on duty (B) you’re not allowed such signage within a polling place and (C) having armed police officers patrolling the facility while openly supporting one particular candidate is voter intimidation.

    Thoughts?

    • A and B make sense, C not so much.

    • A & B are verboten. I have no problem with officers paroling polling locations given the current climate of unrest. I would much rather see them than a billy club welding Black Panther.

      • I don’t think the problem is with an officer patrolling the location. I think the idea is that an armed and intimidating officer who openly is endorsing your opposing candidate is standing feet away from you while you vote.

        I could see how that could be intimidating to some people.

        I mean, if you imagine it in Turkey and Erdogan has an armed goon standing right next to you in the polling place, might you be a bit more leery of voting against him?

        That’s not to say the pro-Biden officer was a goon or deliberately threatening anyone, but that doesn’t mean Trump voters couldn’t have been intimidated by his open support anyway, no?

        • that doesn’t mean Trump voters couldn’t have been intimidated by his open support anyway, no?

          I doubt that very much. Police don’t intimidate Conservatives like they seem to do to Liberals. You seem to be projecting again.

          • Ahhh… got it… so if it were a pro-Trump cop, then it would have been voter intimidation.

            But only because liberals are such wusses.

            Did I get that right?

          • You seem to be projecting again. No, he is not projecting. I would be more restrictive. Any police officer patrolling a political arena…..whether a polling place or rally…should never wear any identifying political insignia. It is very much the same in the military,,,,it is Verbotten. As a conservative, I would not be intimidated….I would make him move and raise so much public hell, it would never happen again. I do not care if it is Republican, Democrat, or Who Goosed the Moose….it should not happen.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              AMEN

            • Oops.

              Sorry… need to correct a mistake I made…

              Silly me.

              Turns out it was a Pro-Trump cop… My bad.

              • Mathius says:
                October 28, 2020 at 10:05 am (Edit)
                A cop in Florida was recently disciplined for wearing a pro-Biden face mask while on duty in a polling place.

                First, I stand by my answer above, secondly you lied to everyone here. And you now know why I say the Liberals are dishonest.

              • Makes no difference…it is wrong. As a Military officer, I am prohibited from any political leanings while in uniform…..

              • Gman,

                First, I stand by my answer above,

                Good. You impressed me by not jumping to “it’s all a liberal conspiracy to yada yada yada those evil malicious lefts yada yada yada” which is more in line with what I expected.

                secondly you lied to everyone here. And you now know why I say the Liberals are dishonest.

                Oh, shove it up your ass.

                ——-

                Colonel,

                Makes no difference…it is wrong. As a Military officer, I am prohibited from any political leanings while in uniform…..

                I expected nothing less from you.

        • First, it is the precinct captain’s responsibility at the polling location to tell the officer to remove the mask. If he does not, then he should be reported to his superior. Second, we have secret ballots so the officer should not be looking over the shoulder of anyone while they are voting. Again it is the precinct captain that should be enforcing these rules. A lot also depends on the demeanor of the cop. An open friendly, chatty office should not be a problem. Bigotry, intimidation of any kind should not be tolerated.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          People should, as we said back on the block, “Grow a Pair”.

          This stupid pandemic, which should well have disappeared by now if it was allowed to run its course while people took sane precautions, will drag on into 2022 at least, following current trends as Bill Gates, the noted micro-biologist tells us. The main reason it will last is the absolute cowardice I have seen in the American people which runs through liberals to conservatives. Just got back on the aluminium pressurized tube from Denver for a required family event. Last five dinners have been in restaurants. Yesterday’s here in NJ was in an empty restaurant while the cowards huddled, freezing outside in the tent.

          Ya know if Fauci worked for FDR, the sonofabitch would have been out the door months back.

  53. It always seems that we the citizens of the USA are the last to know that we have a corrupt politician in office. I am sure that Moscow, Peking, Tehran, Kiev, and others knew of the corruption of the Clintons and Bidens. These politicians go around the world spouting off about human rights, civil rights, corrupt and abusive governments. We must be a laughingstock over there since most of these countries know just how corrupt our leaders are. When Benghazi occurred, all the other governments knew it was an attack and not a video. How foolish we looked in their eyes. They knew we were being lied to. Much of this I blame on the press. Their laziness, lies and omissions allow these kinds of things to happen.

  54. Predictions are that Biden will carry CA by 2:1. That would be 2/3 of the vote for Biden. It will be interesting to see if this holds. It will also be interesting to see if the pattern from 2018 continues. In many congressional seats the R candidate was ahead in election night but lost in the post election counts.

    • In many congressional seats the R candidate was ahead in election night but lost in the post election counts.

      It’s called the Blue Shift… the Dems tend to vote higher by mail-in, so election night results over-sample the Red Team.

      Predictions are that Biden will carry CA by 2:1. That would be 2/3 of the vote for Biden.

      Sounds about right. Maybe we could export some of them to Texas. Cali has enough Democratic voters to spare that it could turn half the mid-west Blue and still hold on to an insurmountable margin in California.

      Imagine if, every two years, 10mm Californians moved – for a month – to assigned locations throughout Texas and the midwest, flipping a dozen states, and then moved back. 🙂

      That’s one way to end-run the Electoral College.

      • So the blue team plans ahead and votes prior to election day in much greater numbers than the red team does. I think this is anti-statistical BS. The argument is put forward to cover for the blue team ballot harvesting and fraud process.

        • Correct.

        • So the blue team plans ahead and votes prior to election day in much greater numbers

          I don’t know if “plans ahead” is the right read so much as “prefers to vote by mail at a higher rate” and, in particular, during covid, is far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans who believe covid to be a hoax.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Hillary Clinton won 61.5% of the California votes in 2016. So really not much has changed.

  55. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Back to Fauci.

    The good doctor informed us yesterday that the vaccine will be a far less than perfect tool, protecting less than half the population. Most people, he says, will get the virus even with the vaccine.

    Now, just because I am a suspicious son of a bitch myself, How much pharma stock did Fauci and Co. sell Monday and how much will they buy back today?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  56. Trump: [paraphrasing] “If Biden wins, suddenly you won’t hear a peep about the Coronavirus anymore after January.”

    Mathius wonders….. Mathius wonders…… Mathius wonders…..

    No, not “not a peep,” but I do agree that the volume will probably be turned waaay down.

    I think he’s broadly correct here. I do think the pro-Biden crowd are stoking this as a way of defeating Trump (duh) even as Trump is minimizing it to avoid losing (duh). And the same for their respective allies, proxies, boosters, and supporters (duh). And once the election is over, neither side really retains the incentive to keep banging that drum the same way.

    If Trump wins, look for more of the same, but gradually fading into the background rather than the incessant panicked drum beat. Especially if it proves to be an ineffective way of rallying Blue support, Blue Team will switch to a different mode of attack. Regardless, you can’t bang the same drum for a year and expect it to retain all same the potency – they are going to have to let go of this bone sooner or later.

    If Biden wins, looks for Blue Team to suddenly realize covid is no big deal and for Red Team to suddenly realize that it’s a five-alarm-fire. (along with their panic over the national debt*, which they have forgotten about for the last four years)

    ——–

    (Insert comment here about those caravans of gang-hiding migrants amassing at the borders which mysteriously disappeared from the conversation after the election.)

    ——–

    *Speaking of the national debt, the right time to buy gold and silver is several months ago, but better late than never. Consider this a friendly reminder.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      The “Caravans” came after the election of Trump. And the reason they went away was because Mr. Trump got Mexico to clamp down on them.

      Did you miss all that?

      As for the rest, pretty fair analysis I would say. Although I am not sure what “panicked drum beat” by Mr. Trump regarding Covid you are talking about.

      I also do not see Mr. Trump ever saying that Covid is out of control or that we are losing the battle. We may be “rounding the corner” for many months though.

      • Although I am not sure what “panicked drum beat” by Mr. Trump regarding Covid you are talking about.

        The panicked drum beat is by the Democrats against Trump.

        I think they lose momentum on it after the election either because it’s not Their Guy’s problem or because it’s ineffective.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        The whole damned thing is nonsense at this point. This generation of Americans could not “take” Laguna Beach let alone Omaha Beach.

        • could not “take” Laguna Beach

          I would pay good money to watch a bunch of Millenials attempt to storm Laguna Beach under the defense by Boomers.

          BRB.. gotta call Netflix…

          • The Storming of Laguna Beach, written by Mathius, directed by gman, produced by JAC with the technical assistance and equipment supplied by D13, hot bods supplied by Anita and VH, historical references by SKT. Sounds like a block buster. Man your surf boards.

    • If Trump wins it will be interesting to see if the democrat party does some self reflection. Will they continue to drift left and embrace the radical socialists or return to the center and reject the socialists? Will they drop Schumer and Pelosi from the leadership? If the Ds continue along the current path with support for the radical left, BLM, Antifa, and violence, they will continue to lose voters. Will the MSM have an epiphany and start reporting the news accurately? All of this I doubt. We will have four more years of strife and division.

      If Biden wins, the republic is lost. The Constitution will remain in force but it will be ignored. The economy will tank then return to stagnation. We will see government get bigger and more intrusive. The elites will do OK but the middle class will shrink. Poverty will explode. China will succeed and be the dominant power by 2050 as they have planned all along.

      Mathius, as for the national debt, I do not see any Ds worried about it. In fact I see them trying to pass multi-trillion dollar “relief” bills which are insane.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        T-Ray

        Do NOT COUNT ON IT. Remember back to Clinton’s first victory. The left went bonkers. He put Hillary in charge of nationalizing health care. They did not moderate. Not until the D’s got their backsides kicked in the midterm election of 94.

        Which brings me to remind everyone that the only time the Govt came even close to dealing with the deficit was after the R’s won both houses in Congress and a leader named Gingrich shoved Mr. Clinton towards the center.

        • After the Reagan Bush41 losses the Ds did move to the center with Clinton/Gore. But they drift back left after that. Gingrich did a good job on the budget but the Rs and Bush43 failed to follow through. We lost control of the house in 2006 as much for the fiscal irresponsibility of the Rs as for disappointment with Bush43.

      • Mathius, as for the national debt, I do not see any Ds worried about it. In fact I see them trying to pass multi-trillion dollar “relief” bills which are insane.

        It’s not really Blue Team’s “issue.”

        Blue Team isn’t particularly concerned, generally speaking, with the debt or deficit. (though, of course, they should be.) They didn’t whine during Obama and they only really whines about the hypocrisy during Trump’s term. Their willingness to spend and be unconcerned with the debt has been consistent. (tough, of course, that’s a different problem unto itself.)

        Red Team, however, is only concerned with it when there’s a Blue Team administration. I find it disingenuous that, when Obama was President, every conservative was bleating to the rafters and bitching and moaning and decrying the debt and deficit (and willfully conflating the two) and using it as a cudgel to force austerity and block Obama policies. But then Trump gets in office and…. crickets.

        The prognostication here – and subsequent complaint – is that Red Team only really cares when they can weaponize it. They aren’t serious about or concerned with the debt. They are concerned about beating Blue Team and will “rediscover” their dire pearl-clutching concern as soon as it is convenient.

        If Biden wins, Red Team is going to suddenly start screaming “fire” about the debt (and they’ll be right) but their concern is just a pretense. And a hypocritical one at that.

        • On the debt issue I do not disagree with you. Both parties are to blame. Both need to take it seriously and stop spending like drunken sailors. (Actually sailors stop when they run out of case, Congress does not.) We the Rs, punished our reps in 2006 something that Ds are reluctant to do. When do you hold your party responsible for its failures?

          • Well… I mean… I don’t have a party.

            For what it’s worth, as I’ve noted, I hold the Blue Team in absolute contempt.

            I think I’ve been clear on this point.

            I only vote (more often) for them because – in my view – they are less bad than Red Team.

            Between the unfortunately forced choice of Blue Team’s “Tax and Spend” versus Red Team’s “Spend but don’t Tax,” there’s a clear answer as to which blows a bigger hole in the budget.

            And if we’re going to go down the Keynsian rabbit hole, then… actually, you know what? Let’s leave it there, shall we?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One other note on Covid. So far everything Mr. Biden has said he will do to address Covid has already been done by Mr. Trump’s administration. All while he claims he will solve the problem BETTER. The mind boggling part of this? The MSM has yet to call him out on it. Big surprise there.

      Meanwhile they are claiming Mr. Trump is downplaying the problem because he said we are “rounding the corner”. Which in my book is true given that his “experts” are saying the vaccine may be out by end of December.

      I remain steadfast in my prediction of a month or two back. If Mr. Trump loses it will be of his own making. And his commentary on Covid will be a big part of that “own making”.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Re: The Vid or Rona or what have you:

      Back in March, Dr. Deborah Birx, one of the experts advising President Trump, predicted that “if we do things almost perfectly,” there would be up to 200,000 deaths in the United States.

      “If we do things together well, almost perfectly, we could get in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 fatalities,” Birx told Savannah Guthrie on Today.

      Of course, things weren’t perfect, thanks largely to New York and New Jersey, the states with the worst responses to COVID-19 in the country, and the worst in the world—particularly New York. Roughly 22 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the United States come from New York and Jersey.

      The fact is that a small number of poorly managed states skew America’s COVID-19 death numbers significantly.

      For example, if you take the COVID-19 death counts of the top four states per capita (New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut), they account for 28 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the country.

      That’s an incredibly high concentration of deaths in just four states. Yet despite these states’ disproportionately bad responses to the pandemic, the United States is basically where Dr. Birx said we’d be if things had been done almost perfectly.

  57. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for a history lesson on how just tolerant the Muslims were that invaded N. Africa, particularly Egypt.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/how_a_fiercely_christian_nation_became_fanatically_islamic.html

  58. Dow down >600, Has the pre-election stock sell off started?

  59. The Legacy Media aka the Liberal media are simply no longer a free press, but are totally in the tank for ONE political party. If the recent Hunter Biden stuff were about Don Trump Jr, it would be all we would hear till the election. Not only is there a living (for now) witness who just had a huge viewership on last nights interview, but he (claims) to have the evidence (well, the FBI does now too) to support his claims. The Liberal media is mostly ignoring this story to protect their political leanings rather than reporting the news (which this is huge news). As for the censorship on Social media by big tech, They will become a echo chamber and new sites will come along.

    On Covid. Yes, people around here think the dumb restrictions will go away after the election. I do too. It’s been politicized and many also think it was on purpose (the death rates in NY, NJ etc.) to use it against Trump.

    Election riots? Let them burn their cities down. Nothing says sore loser like pure stupidity.

  60. 325 million poured into TV ads in Texas for democrats. The ads outnumber the republican ads by a 4 to 1 margin. And, they are very effective ads for the mentally challenged. Full court press on.

    This will change the dynamics of voting in Texas in the future on transplants…..7 democratic newcomers that are challenging Republican held seats……are from out of state until recently. 3 from California, 2 from Illinois, and 2 from New York.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Tony Bobulinski dropped a big Navy Anchor on Mr. Biden’s family last night. It landed squarely on Mr. Biden himself. As expected the right leaning media today is covering the bombshell. And as you all know, I don’t use that term often. This should DESTROY Mr. Biden’s candidacy as POTUS. But…………

    As of a few minutes ago there is NOT A SINGLE STORY about this revelation on any of the MSM network sites or The Hill or Politico. The latter did run a story focusing on the laptop and how Fox and the R’s are scrambling because nothing on the lap top “proves” Mr. Biden was in the middle of these deals. The entire story does not mention Bobulinski and the Chinese connections.

    The actively accuse the Russians of trying to influence our elections and here you have the MSM ignoring a corruption story on the eve of an election. This is absolutely sickening.

    And “Oh the Irony” that Mr. Bobulinski says the reason he finally came forward was when Adam Schiff claimed his memos were Russian disinformation. Essentially claiming that he was a Russian agent. Apparently he asked Adam Schiff directly to retract the statement. He also asked the Biden’s to step up and admit what was true. They wouldn’t so Mr. Bobulinski went public. The good Biden name may be destroyed and they can thank Adam Schiff.

  62. Well my ballot is in and accepted.

    • Well my ballot is sent… but no idea if it’s been received or accepted.

      Not that it matters, because I live in New York, and my vote is worthless.

  63. I have a friend that is in a common law marriage with a gal from Liberty, Texas. He thought he got hooked up with a real Texas gal and they were at a party and someone asked her to finish this song…….”The Stars at night are big and bright”…she finished with…..”THAT’s retarded”. Obviously, not a gal from Texas, what should I do he asked……do I shoot her or divorce her?

    the unanimous answer was…………..shoot her. She doesn’t get half that way.

  64. Let’s talk turkey. In the depression there was a young lad who turned his FFA project into a major business and saved the family farm from foreclosure. His name was Howard Kauffman. He was an old man when I was growing up. My Dad remodeled (restored) the original farmhouse on the home place. I’ve worked on the farm and Howard’s house in town and Mom packed turkeys a few years. At one time, the turkey farm was the 7th largest in the country but they were severely hurt by inheritance taxes when the old man died. They are much smaller now but still a substantial operation.

    https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/dekalb-county-turkey-farm-ready-for-busiest-season/article_e3acf832-1858-11eb-a929-07ef2d77b3d2.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR14KWnNoSDeD7i3dv8VlTvjcleFj4b7UKCf_sAQTIaYE9lpMBimlsBAkSc

  65. Some food for thought:

    If demographic trends continue in the direction they’re headed, then Texas will turn purple and then Blue.

    For the sake of this conversation, let’s just take that as a given fact: demographic changes will turn Texas blue over the next decade or so.

    At that point, with Texas, the Pac coast, and the North East all solidly Blue, there is effectively no path whatsoever – at all – to ever elect another Republican President.

    You can come as close as you want to on the popular vote, and hold the Senate, but the Electoral College will all but mathematically preclude the Republican Party from holding the office of the Presidency.

    Even if you can take and hold Florida, Red Team’s odds of winning the EC are vanishingly small without Texas.

    Given this, is it now a good idea to reevaluate the EC? Sure, it helps the small states today, but if/once Texas flips, those same states are completely locked out of power. They will all become spectator states. The same thing that “gives you a voice” now will mean that you have no voice at all soon.

    Thoughts?

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/

    • By that time we will have flipped millions of you centrist Ds to Rs, because you will finally realize what a losing game the Ds are playing.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Keep ’em poor and stupid. But if they get away from poverty gradually they will wise up. That is when blue turns red!

        Historically people were riding the crest of a wave in the 1920’s the Depression pulled the rug out from under them and created the original blue wave. Everything the d. party has done since has been aimed at keeping it that way.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Nope! Texas was blue at one time, well “western blue”.

      If the very large States turn blue I see little difference in the outcome whether EC or popular vote. Because 50% of 30 million is 15 million and that amounts to SEVEN states the size of Idaho. Assuming 100% of those states voted red.

    • Mathius…as JAC said, Texas was almost completely blue back in the early 80’s….then it turned….and, yes, there is an onslaught of transplants that have moved into Texas over the last 25 years and those people are running for office. They moved here just for that. We know what the game plan is by your party ( it is your party if you vote for it, yes?.) It is a pity you do not see it…….or maybe you do and you do not mind what is happening. You will see it too late, I think. I am not talking about conspiracy theories here. You know me better than that. I do not dwell in conspiracy theories but I do have eyes and a functioning brain.

      I do not like what I see happening here, in Texas,….I hate it. We have a good state and people are moving in because we have low taxes and no state income tax. We have and live within a budget that, by law, must be a balanced budget and our legislature meets every two years….no permanent politicians and advantage has been taken of that. We do not spend what we do not have and for some, that seems to be wrong……you among them.

      We moved the National guard two days ago into Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. We are preparing for what we know is coming because our intelligence gathering is tops. We know for sure….without a doubt, that if Trump wins Texas, there will be an attempt at rioting and looting. THIS IS CERTAIN. We know who they are and they are not from Texas,,,,,they have been moved here to create chaos in this state to turn it…if not this time…next time. This is being done all over the country……..and you SEEM to me to not care. You say it is ok in order to throw the orange man out….whatever it takes.

      Many times you have said that… ” I would vote for an axe murderer if their policies were consistent with mine.” Well, sir, that line of thought that allowed you to vote for Biden/Harris, when you know full well, Biden will be out within 12 months (no, this is not a conspiracy theory. It is exactly how I feel) then makes you a part of the problem and a man with your intellect surprises me about this. Very much surprises me. You appear to also want to fundamentally change the dynamics of this country to be like Europe and the other fall in line ne’er do wells.

      Well, you might get your wish and, as you mentioned above, it will be too late to change anything down the road and you seem to be ok with a one party socialist system. You life will not change because you are part of the Wall Street ilk that likes the democrats spending habits. You know that I am conversant with the markets and business dealings of hedge funds, stocks, and such. I am smart and I invest quite successfully. I am good enough to know how to avoid paying as much tax as I can, but I do pay what I cannot protect. I have told you on here many times, that I know how to take my money offshore and protect it. I am fortunate to be able to do that but my children cannot and my grand children cannot and neither can 95 % of the public. I brought my money back when Trump took office because I do not think that a 22% tax rate is to high. But I do believe that a tax rate higher than 25% and a capital tax rate of 30 or 38% or higher is not right and I do not believe in taxing success for the masses. You do. I fear for this country and I fear for the middle class. Under a democratic administration for a period of time, it will disappear and the very thing you are afraid of will happen. One party rule and an elite class that will run everything. A third world country. What a shame.

      But Texas is in the sights. I think that allowing outside money is abhorrent. The amounts of outside money that has poured in here is astounding. according to the news….the amount of money spent in Texas to turn it is the largest amount ever recorded in the history of any state election. I only hope, there are plenty of people, like me, that will stand up and fight…even if it means taking weapons to do so. I know you think it is not right to use deadly force to protect property. But it will be used here…by the populace. The guard has been issued orders in the event of violence in the cities. Looters will not be arrested. They will be shot and they should be. You will not see police standing idly by watching looting taking place. You will see shop owners protecting their stores. The National Guard, under the command of the governor, will protect those cities where the police will not. I know you think this is wrong…..but this is what the blue side wants and is driving us to it.

      This is going to be ugly….and if Biden wins, and I think he will, you will see a transition so fast that it will make the Patriot Act look like a sunday school recess. I am prepared for it. I cannot be hurt but I fear for the others.

  66. Skip forward to 12:45.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh my! So many questions arise from this. Very creepy to say the least.

    • “This video has been removed by the uploader”

    • Video removed

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Video removed

    • For those that did not see it, Tucker Carlson reported that a source had given Fox News a trove of documents relating to the Biden story. Tucker was in CA preparing to tape the Bobulinski interview so he had his producer ship overnight the documents to his hotel. They never arrived. On tracking the shipment they were told by the shipper that the package was found but ripped open and the contents removed. The shipper did a full search of their facility and planes but could not find the material. Draw your own conclusions.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        “First time happenstance, second time coincidence, third time, Enemy Action”
        -Cmdr. James Bond

      • Not sure this would be a big deal if the documents were not the only copy. One would have to be an idiot to send the only copy across the country. I’ll guess they show up soon, the drama surrounding them will get more viewers.

  67. A new thread has been posted.

%d bloggers like this: