leh-nerd skin-erd

What about this guy? Brittney for Al-Mirimi? https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockerbie-bombing-suspect-custody

If you’re asking literally he’s a character in Atlas Shrugged. If you’re Comrade Kaying it up, John Galt is all of us at once, yet none of us at all. We are him, yet, really, who are we?

@Chef Jim It’s the holiday season…why not whoop-de-whoop? Whippity *****. Bippity bop. Like the song says.

Read this book. 12 years is a pebble in a sandstorm.

I generally don’t care what my neighbor thinks, and always feel like Twitter is akin to listening to them yelling out the window as I walk by. I also don’t like the format, the multiple posts in sequence makes me feel like they go and grab a beer while talking and just keep yammering when they get back. That said, appreciate the sentiment and maybe I’ll give it a whirl.

He can be very funny. I’m not on Twitter so thank you.

You never go against the family, Fergy. What happens next is not personal.

It’s probably no secret I occasionally use 45 words when 6 might cover it. I’ve also generally been a fan of CKAs posts for some time, though it’s tough to find areas where I agree with her. Over the past couple months, my impression was that her posts became less…infotainment…and more personal at least where I was concerned. That happens sometimes. I appreciate her most recent post on Sinema and the thoughts shared. It’s not everybody’s cup of tea, but I enjoy it as least as much as watching folks who were worried about Trump and authoritarian rule working hard to defend Biden, the DOJ and Twitter for a pretty obvious propaganda campaign to influence the outcome of elections. Now, if I’m being honest—and I am being honest, as I read through her thoughts on Jungian psychology and the like, I wanted to scream “Sometimes a fella just wants to be objectified!” but she was rolling.

I assumed Commando was getting picked on by Trump’s dog, Stealy?

I agree with you on the vape cartridges, and her right to express herself as she sees fit. Likewise, people have the right to express themselves as they see fit on her actions. At the same time, it’s hard to remove the fact that she put herself in harms way by traveling to Russia in the first place. Do people not read the news, or consider the political landscape when making decisions? Two things can be true at the same time. She can be a victim of circumstance, some of which was of her own making, and a trade in exchange for the prisoner can be a very bad decision. As for the incentive for hostile governments to seize Americans, that pre-dates Brittney Griner by decades. All that has happened here is they know the conditions under which Biden will negotiate.

This actually is deserving of ridicule. The daylight streaming through the windows, the fact that the photo was posted at 2:49pm and Commander is noticing how late it’s getting is hysterical. Assuming they set the scene up by 1-1:30, you gotta wonder what time it starts “getting late” in the Biden WH. Like….noon? It’s pawsitively prepawsterous.

I don’t know what you heard, Kay, but I only said hi to her in the hallway after class. Oh, and…

God love ya, you’re still hitting that Stormy Daniels thing like you’re running for office. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-avenatti-sentenced-48-months-prison-identity-theft-and-defrauding-former-client https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-must-pay-300k-donald-trump-losing-defamation-case-appea-rcna21002

Every now and again, I like to confuse the crowd and fool the censors. As of 0900, I’ve established in-roads to freedom fighters in Qatar on the ham radio stashed in my bug out pad. Stay tuned mofos!

Ned Boy “Leslie” Chou?

In looking at the top causes of death for men in the 45-54 age group, the top 4 or 5 causes deal with heart or lung issues. The total death count exceeds 30,000, and when you consider he was traveling, working, doing what he thought was right with respect to human rights issues, it seems reasonable that he might be at higher risk than he might otherwise be. When you factor in death threats and reporting on what he was seeing, I would think he was under inordinate stress. By all means, his death should be investigated, but there are other factors to consider. What a shame, seems like he was a very special guy.

I don’t know if it’s a special power, but he’s powerful enough to have Vladimir Putin—a man known for assassinating dissidents, interfering in elections, invading countries and generally causing mass death and injury—went to great lengths to get him back. In addition, he’s powerful enough that when a deal was offered, Joe Biden acquiesced apparently without much of a negotiation if reports are accurate. Then again, maybe Putin just wanted him back for the Over 50 World Dictators Pickleball Tournament in 2023? As for Ukraine and the like, I guess everybody has their own red line on this sort of thing, it’s just a matter of where we find it. I believe it would be criticized roundly. And while I believe Biden would happily have included Whelan in this deal, if it was one or the other, it was always going to be Griner. If it was Whelan but no Griner, the deal would not have happened.

I acknowledged that 247,513 words ago. I am talking about the public perception of impropriety, and there’s plenty here to consider. “Wasn’t warranted” because the DOJ controls the game, because the argument goes if you can beat the government in court, there’s no harm, no foul. You’ve mentioned it here several times, and it’s a significant part of why people don’t automatically rally behind this sort of thing. That is the case the government has made, but statements made and allegations brought are often self-serving and duplicitous. Again, everyone knows this, and it’s why people aren’t incarcerated upon decree…at least for now. As for what choices they had, there are always choices before an armed raid. The statist favors the seizure, the artist favors compromise. However, once the decision to lay siege is made, it’s reasonable to assume it be done professionally and correctly. You keep saying this like it’s the best thing going. Every stakeholder on the DOJ side is paid handsomely to participate in this probe. It’s not a net benefit to the target of the probe to suggest that if he prefers, he can spend millions of dollars to fight the system that supports the system. How about they apply some modicum of professionalism and take only what they are entitled to?

I can't order Chipotle in under 5 sentences, and no "FU" was intended. For him. U, FU! So brief that you didn't include the link to the class! Btw, I'm pretty convinced after reading some of your post that you should not be teaching said class. FU2.

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that goes into your replies, and acknowledge the pain it must cause when a simple country boy like myself takes a position that goes contrary to what is probably an articulate summary of the law as it exists. I do not doubt for a minute that the deck is stacked in favor of the government. It always is. The thing is...I don't care that they can do it, I simply question why Garland chose this particular path. You've been vocal on the fact that Trump has rights here, when and if the time comes to assert a defense or question egregious behavior, and that's true. However, the principle obstacle to victory is the 1000 Ton Elephant known as the United State Government, which will always have the means and personnel to fight tooth and nail every step of the way. There is no downside in doing so. A million dollars? 10 million dollars? $100 million dollars? There's always more money and more people on one side than the other. I follow your ficus analogy, and followed the one where they seized the 1994 Chrysler K car in your prior note, but respectfully that's not at all what people would be concerned with. If they grab the "World's Best Boss" mug sandwiched between the folder marked "Nuclear Codes for Xi Jin Ping" and "Battle Movements 3rd Infantry Division-hold for Val", no one cares. But sure, if a hapless aw shucks well-intentioned but under-managed agent inadvertently grabs 4 years of tax returns and 200 pages of correspondence outlining strategy with his legal team, forgive people who pay attention to politics of being a tad concerned that "Scouts Honor" is what separates legitimate search for justice and tyranny. Who Chi, who would ever look at the process as it is laid out and be thrilled as a target of an investigation that the government held all the cards to crush you, and the ones you could play to tell your tale will bankrupt you to pursue? This isn't a new theory, and sensible and reasonable people know this to be true. You mentioned I was wrong in a couple spots, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Is it that the Taint Team are not members of the DOJ? The standard(s) as established were not set by the government (and by this, let's assume I mean lawmakers)? If I was a betting man, I'd say it had something to do with my characterization of the appointment of the Special Master. I don't believe Judge Cannon acted illegally, or outside the scope of her authority, but correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me the law allows for consideration of same, which means there are times when it makes sense to have the third party review, and she felt strongly enough to assign one. The DOJ said quite loudly "We don't want an independent review of the data we seized". At the risk of repeating myself, Trump is not the average guy on the street, the action undertaken by the Garland justice department is not a run-of-the-mill case, and there is ample evidence that Trump has been a victim of political persecution. AG Barr said as much. The simple reality is that people in power do not live by the same rules as you and I, deals are struck and some people are simply above the law. In addition, power corrupts, bias is a problem and absent a deep dive into the actions of prior presidents as it relates to confidential information, we have no idea what precedent exists. Anyway, you trust without question. I do not. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that when the raid was planned, they considered the appearance of impropriety and stringent standards as to what they seized and what they did not. Again, everything in that house was completely and directly within their control, and their actions suggest they wanted much, much more than they were allowed to grab.

This all seems logical enough. And, when everyone trusts everyone else to do the right thing, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, no one trusts anyone here, and the DOJ actions really read like this: The government set the rules of engagement, and the rules clearly favor the interests of the government: They set the standard as to how the raid was carried out. Who, what, when and for how long. They set the standard as to what can be taken, who can enter the home, what can be seized and why; When they gather documents that they should not be gathering, of course "...they aren't lawyers..." which, if trust is missing, simply means they can grab anything they like under the theory that "...they aren't lawyers...". At the same time though, the DOJ certainly has the capacity to have proper oversight to ensue that only the correct documents are seized; They control the team that reviews what was taken, presumably much more efficiently than the team that had to grab anything they might feel is warranted because the DOJ was apparently unable to control the scope of what was taken to begin with, even though the have the location locked down under their control; The taint team, staffed by members of the DOJ, which was unable to limit the search to that which they were authorized to take, theoretically renders an unbiased opinion on what should/should not have been seized; The law provides for the appointment of an objective Third Party to protect the interest of the person who's house has been raided, the judge assigned to the case saw a need for just that type of oversight, and in this case, assigned someone to do just that. The DOJ clearly does not want an objective third party review of the documents inappropriately seized, and appeals to keep everything in house. They prevail. The reality here is that Trump is not an ordinary citizen. Politicians and powerful people rarely get the treatment average folks get in our system. An argument can be made he's been the victim of political persecution over several years, and the DOJs actions certainly should be viewed with suspicion.

Good for her. Maybe we need more of this sort of thing. And the biggest poser in Washington.

By the true believers in Biden, the rationalization is he’s untouchable and beyond criticism. That describes a few folks here. For some, generally, the human interest angle and the feelings generated by seeing BG come home overrides any concern of Bout returning to his prior life and destroying countless others. For some, it’s business as usual, politicians choose who wins and who loses and in this case, why get all upset about it?

Welcome back, Doc. Brittney Griner is home and that’s excellent news for her and her family. Bout is free to injure, kill and maim again, and that’s very bad for the world. No, I would not make the trade. Had the exchange involved returning a Russian national convicted on some low level charge, the son or daughter of a Russian diplomat or member of the Russian water polo team, I’d consider that. As an American, would you consider accepting an arrangement for a temporary pause in aid to Ukraine in exchange for Paul Whelan? Let’s assume no financial/military aid to Ukraine for 6 months. Or, there are stories of the Ukrainians mistreating Russian POWs, up to injuring/killing or releasing videos of them. Would you support Biden pressuring Zelensky to grant their release by withholding aid/support until…say 100 were returned to Russia? In return, Paul Whelan comes home. Finally, I do not believe Biden would have traded Whelan for Bout, leaving BG behind, if that was the only option. Do you?

BillSy is struggling today, very difficult to follow. Turns out he makes more sense when he spends his days meme-ing.