leh-nerd skin-erd

I absolutely agree with your point about context. I own small business and can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by well-intentioned people “you can do that” or “you don’t have to worry about that” or “you’re a small business owner you can do whatever you like” (obviously in the context of employment decisions and general ethical business management). What that all really means is that assuming you’re following the rules and regulations set forth by the State, you’re good to go. That’s true, but with a caveat: you must be prepared to put your business interests on hold and be willing to defend yourself at what likely will be a substantial cost in the event a complaint is lodged against you. Certainly there can come a time when you analyze the cost, consider your options and settle to move on. You can also most definitely prevail, but it’s important to know that while it costs you $$$$$$$$, it costs the people you are working with on the side of the state nothing. That’s not a critique on the investigators btw, just an honest fact that plays into it all. If General Flynn plead guilty, served his sentence and we all went about our business, it would have just been another story of a rogue politician have dipped his toe in the pool of stupidity. That’s not what happened, and in considering the DOJs decision to shut the case down in its entirety, it seems fairly clear to me that it amounted to malicious and unfounded prosecution. When General Flynn was faced with complete and total financial devastation, he chose to plead. When he saw a light at the end of the tunnel, he chose to try and undo what was done. It is very true that when he chose to plead, he might well have fought the government and drawn a line in the sand, all while the meter is spinning furiously and he’s ultimately getting the bill. As for Mueller and political nut squeezing, sure, it’s done and of course it’s part of the process. It’s one reason I believe that when faced with questions by law enforcement in a criminal matter, it’s always best to say nothing at all. The reality is that the law—-in whatever form you encounter it, can range from righteous and just to, well, George Floyd. If you’re the bad guy and your nuts get squeezed (El Chapo, for instance) the average guy on the street doesn’t say much. If, however, you’re the good guy and trying to ward off the leviathan, well, you’re on an island and the decisions get much more difficult. As for Herr Mueller’s time on the job, that’s relevant, but not necessarily from the perspective that he’s any more credible than anyone else. To be completely honest, after watching him at the Herr Mueller Dog N Pony Show and Russian Rodeo and listening to him attempt to explain the outcome of his investigation, I think the people of this great country are much safer investigatorily when he’s retired and fly fishing in Montana. So..context. The DOJ moving to dismiss and Mueller saying a whole lot of nothing about nothing resulting in nothing leads me back to where I started. I appreciate the feedback, have a good weekend.

You weigh against General Flynn in multiple posts, but back out of it all by including “not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn...”. If I’m reading you correctly, you referenced transcripts where he plead guilty (fair), and in the post seen to suggest that the original prosecution was unwarranted, perhaps meaning the DOJ pursued charges erroneously but in good faith, or was overly aggressive, or they attempted to steamroll him for political purposes? The DOJ, upon review of factual information available, decided the prosecution was unwarranted. Of course, we know that the prosecution is slow walking the release of documentation in their file, which seems to support the notion that a steam roll was the most likely explanation.

In contrast, external sources present a different story, that Flynn was a loose cannon, unable to give and take direction effectively. You encourage people to read the court documents, then copy and paste 5th grade study hall rumor mongering pressed by a fading left wing rag citing friends of friends of friends and unsubstantiated gobbledygook? The government has the power to destroy lives and ruin families. This is not conjecture, it’s not speculation, and the fact is that everyone knows it happens. The only question is whether or General Flynn was a victim or not. Innocent people have plead guilty, been found guilty, and later exonerated. In this case, we know the DOJ pressed on with charges until such time as they took a deeper dive into the facts, at which time they moved to dismiss. It seems fairly straightforward to me, at least on the DOJ side of things. We should be disappointed they sought to destroy him in the first place, but hopeful for the future in that when they recognized the problems with the case and subsequently moved to dismiss. All the innuendo that Colin got from Becky who talked to Beatrice about Flynn eating someone else’s lunch stashed in the breakroom fridge is compelling in a Real Housewives of DC sort of way, but irrelevant.

Awesome feedback and thanks. I understood the large blue X on my forehead once I thought about it, but some things just strike me as funny after the dust settles. The doc who did my surgery is well regarded in the field and apparently has a great reputation—some call him the Bruce Dickinson of ocular manipulation—but it occurred to me that for all his book learnin and schoolin the entire process could have been brought to its knees if someone left the cap off the sharpie an hour earlier.

That’s hysterical!!

You're not a nobody, you're our somebody. Keep rolling DR.

I had eye surgery a few years back due to an old injury. It took me a few years to decide to go through with it, and as they were getting ready to put me under, the nurse confirmed which eye the surgery was on, grabbed a magic marker and made an X over it. She told me it can get confusing for the doctor depending on where he was standing. It was not all that reassuring and I started to ask more questions and the lights went out.

My son was stunned to hear that I would choose to forgo a SB win with Kapernick at the helm back when he was sporting the pig socks. I’ll take the election.

What I think is largely irrelevant to the relationship between Obama and Biden when Biden was the second most powerful man in the world. I know who I am voting for and whether or not they hated each other is not my concern. I understand from a dispassionate perspective the question posed, but you’ve now suggested that a guy in office for nearly 5 decades didn’t really have the juice to be impactful enough in his role because he wasn’t president, and now was not essential and/or useful as counsel to President in his role as VP. This approach, should Biden choose to take that path, is a losing strategy.

He spent nearly 20% of his time as the second most powerful human being in the world after spending the other 80% in the rarified air of being in the top 25. If his pitch follows your line of thinking—and I’m not knocking you here—he comes off sounding like a tired old tiger who lost his teeth. Besides, fairness has nothing to do with anything.

Biden was very effective against Ryan in a guy off the street sort of way. His history of plagarism, lies, racial insensitivity and uncomfortable groping/touching/assaulting was of no concern to the citizens who voted for him then, nor was his unprofessional debate style of interrupting and or guffawing like a swamp mule then. He’s been elevated to heir apparent now, so he’ll get away with anything he does now. I’m not at all certain it’s the slam dunk many feel it will be. Trump isn’t Paul Ryan, but I’d be surprised to see Biden babbling for the entire event. Trump’s line of attack should simply be an extension of what he said recently—he’s accomplished more than in 47 months than Biden has in 47 years. He wins on those terms.

If Biden was around to see this, he would be heartbroken.

Step outside and face me while you say this, that’s all I have to say about this. I mean, shorten it a bit, knock back a paragraph or two, maybe eliminate the bullet points and whatnot, it’s getting chilly early this time of year and I haven’t had my flu shot yet. I hope you are wrong, hence my fury.

Tie the act of evil directly to the main inquisitor, Kamala Harris. Juxtapose that with her comments on Biden and believing he’s a violent sexual predator and later on, her giddiness as she laughed off supporting the alleged victim of the violent sexual assault when asked in the dopey tonight show. I think it’s rare to have a candidate you can rightly portray as overtly hostile, hypocritical and apathetic to the plight of survivors of violent assault in one fell swoop.

Now you went and perved it up! I rarely can work clean in my real life so I test drive being classy here.

It’s interesting and I see a parallel between RBG and Bill Clinton. Both extremely intelligent and capable people, both perhaps a bit on the narcissistic side (one more than the other obviously), but in the end, both “undone” by circumstances that were fairly easy to predict and project. One involved exposing his throat to his enemies on one of the worst kept secrets in politics, the other by over managing the curves that life inevitably throws at us all. Simple human failings.

Fitz...have you ever heard of......Pilates?

Your main concern for the Rs is the “bad look” after Russia and Kavanaugh? If that is what it looks like when we’re all looking good together I say pass. There is no precedent from 2016. The situation is similar only in that a seat is available because a justice died. A bad look, imo, is the suggestion that RBG kept her thoughts on a president replacing her private, shared them with a select few as she spent her final hours reflecting on her life. Certainly she would know a sitting president was under no obligation to act as she saw fit, surely she knew the country is in the midst of serious and significant societal unrest, and surely she would know her dying words would be used as a rallying cry for those intent on destruction. She was 87 years old and a very skilled writer coming to the end of a fight that lasted several years...,she could not pen an op ed for the NYT outlining her thoughts? It seems clear to me that RGB was intent on serving as a justice for the duration of her life, knowing all the obligation and rules that applied as she made that decision, and a huge part of that was that upon death, her seat opened up. She chose to remain all throughout the Obama years, she chose to remain as she battled setback upon setback, and there is nothing written or published that suggests she expected anything other than to see her commitment through to the end. We should respect her enough to honor the process. It only looks bad to the oppostion, and the opposition has shown time and again their contempt for who the President is, what his role is, and for 60,000,000 Americans who support him. Time to move on from this bs Sally Field “You really like me!” garbage.

The Italians tend to prefer their women be Rubenesque, if I may be so bold. And if I may generalize.

I believe he is suggesting that ABC has personally waged a war on the poor, thus making her an “a hole”, and that he really wants his type of a hole in her place. We can gloss over the fact that irrespective of the obvious challenges one encounters when speaking about the Catholic Church and it’s hierarchy, the number of good, decent and hard working Catholics throughout history that have dug deep into their own pocket to help those less fortunate is incalculable.

These words strung together mean nothing tangible, and the sentiment I think you are trying to convey flies in direct contrast to the disrespectful rhetoric you used to characterize ABC earlier. Hate is hate, you just advocate hating a different target than someone else.

But based on your comments above, it sounds to me like you just want your own brand of bigot on the court. Same old same old.

She would pray to her God. What would make her a “fanatic” and why the characterization? By all accounts a devoted jurist, decent human being and excellent mother to her children. We would be fortunate to have another strong woman on the SC to help shepherd the country further along during this very contentious period in our history. Ginsberg’s relationship with Judaism certainly impacted who she was as a jurist, and think of how different the country would be if your sort of religious bigotry prevented her from taking her place in history.

Plus we’re almost certain to be within a half-dozen spots of NE in the power rankings tomorrow!

We have plenty to gain, however and we have a sitting President willing to move forward. We have no idea what the future holds for any of the justices, and what the SC might look like post Biden. I really see no issue at all moving forward. Hell it might even cost the Rs the election but you play the hand you’re dealt. Thanks for the reply—I’ll consider that as well.