leh-nerd skin-erd

stoner.

Let us, too, remember the words of the great Les Emmerson (RIP), who wrote: And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin'...will be shot on sight". So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house "Hey! What gives you the right to put up a fence to keep me out but to keep Mother Nature in? If God was here, he'd tell you to your face 'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"... Are you, Frank? Are you "some kind of sinner"?

No, I don’t think he should have been prosecuted. I think that there is precious little faith in elected officials and the institution represented by Washington, DC generally. If you want to see a generalized shift in belief in the decency of those in power and the righteousness of people represented by a Merrick Garland and a Jack Smith, change the administration. My thinking has been that Trumps stolen election claim of 2020 was bad for the country—divisive, unsettling, and fed into the natural distrust of Washington and politics in general. However, the Dems claims of illegitimate elections/stolen elections/coup and all that bs that followed in 2016 did exactly the same thing. That one followed the other was completely predictable. To take it one step further—I believe that were the roles reversed, you as an individual would be lamenting the assault on decency and the American way if Biden was the target. So, recognizing most of these people can be targeted by the opposition for illegal/unsavory activity, I think what’s going on with Trump is bad across the board. What’s going to determine which future heads roll will be which party is in power.

“Ticky tack” tells the tale, thanks.

Your post reminds me--tonight is spaghetti night. As I pick through it... Jack Smith is prosecuting a case. The accusations are damning, but ignoring the obvious questions that arise given all that we know is foolish. Proceed in that regard as you see fit. You didn't take a position on Andrew Cuomo's comments. Do you think he was telling the truth or not? You're not on trial here, you're among friends. What do you think? Yes, hold everyone accountable, but you seem to feel that's accomplished by selective prosecution. I don't. You didn't take a position on the intelligence agents. Do you think they acted nefariously, that their collective declarations was the result of well-meaning incompetence, or that they absolutely nailed the issue? You're not on trial here...what do you think? I think they made the declaration to sow doubt and provide cover for a story during an election. I'm comfortable managing the talking points and other facets of my life, but all feedback is welcome. Well, not all, but this seems harmless enough. Fair enough.

Understandable, and I wanted to be sure I addressed it correctly. I didn't want to speak for you. Ok, again, fair enough. It was a weak case, based on a sh*tty premise, specifically targeted at the one individual but it's not a political hit because he got away with other crimes? That's the justice system in action? Someone claims someone says someone else did something he wasn't charged for, never had a chance to answer to, but it's ok because of make up justice? Ok, but wow. You wonder why people are cynical and don't trust the system?

All of that is fine, but I hesitate to put blind faith in any institution. It occurs to me that the court filings prepared by the prosecution might well be misleading, untruthful or manipulative. There is ample evidence of that sort of behavior historically, and when politics are involved my spidey senses tingle. I may be a bit turned around in my head, but last night, @The Frankish Reich acknowledged that prosecutorial leaks were not uncommon, and indicated he felt my perspective was fair. Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed. My only issue there is--would the Smith team acknowledge leaking material? What exactly would they say? Julie Kelly is not the only game on the block. Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Quick question: Was the commentary from the 50+ intelligence agents meant to mislead the public, or a simple misunderstanding on a grand scale?

I would submit that the acknowledgement of selective prosecution, and the indication that "...we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted..." doesn't move the needle for me in the least, and certainly seems to be problematic from a trust perspective. In fact, it's quite similar to the crafted speech by James Comey in deep-sixxing the investigation into HRC, where he said: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." What would have moved the needle for me is clear and convincing evidence that the DOJ, Congress, Senate and Executive displayed some sort of fiduciary discipline in the handling, storage and retention of classified material. We clearly don't have that--so the handwringing over who had what and when seems silly. Instead we get some gobbledeegook about a guy with 50 years experience dealing with national security clearly and repeatedly violating the law over decades, and being reassured it's really no big deal. Or, that there was absolutely no wrongdoing involved, and then we could skip past the junior high school girl deep analysis of 'the fundamental interests of society'. Btw, I'm with @Doc on this issue--common sense suggests that prosecuting (persecuting) high ranking politicians over issues like this is bad form, and most definitely bad for the country. i'd suggest politicians for decades have handled this stuff under the theory of mutually assured destruction. Still, we deal with the cards as dealt.

I took it that way, but no need to apologize. I respect your feedback even when I disagree with your take, and take nothing said here personally. If you’re correct, then at worst it’s fodder for political discussion. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last.

Look at you—you’ve spun quite a tale of smoke screens, right wing propagandists, rogue judges, echo chambers and cults. That’s nice.

Chi, we’re living in a world where clear, obvious and intentional disregard of the laws involving top secret/classified morph to protect some while destroying others. It’s possible everything said and done by the SC is above board with no political animus. It simply seems unlikely to me, and if that represents bad faith to you, I can live with it.

I know we talked about this recently, but I cannot square the actions here to the theory of justice, blind and true. Chi has opined at times about leeway given to 'electeds' when it comes to Biden's clear and obvious disregard for laws and regulation. That extends, of course, to anyone who handled the classified documents that ultimately ended up in his possession. In fact, it apparently extended to the ghost writer who destroyed material relevant to the case, and the flagrant disregard for security. On the other hand, we have the government, an armed raid, the rejection of a special master, items taken that were outside the scope of the information to be gathered, the news that they staged leaked photos, and whatever comes next...and surely something will come next. I then go back to the theory offered by Andrew Cuomo, which is that the Bragg action was purely political and designed specifically for one individual. Chi states that had Trump simply turned the material over, nothing further happens. I reject that based on the history of Trump as candidate, and president. So, for me...trust is an issue, even beyond the concern I have about selective leaks to shape a narrative.

To be fair, though, it seems as if the DOJ didn't really care much one way or another what was classified at this level, who was handling it, or where it was stashed for a couple hundred years +/-...until suddenly we were in the midst of a full blown classified document crisis centering around one individual. What's weird is that one individual wasn't the guy with a documented history of seizing/maintaining classified documents over several decades, and where classified information was shared and evidence destroyed by a third party, with no rhyme, reason or sensible security standards applied. To boot, the story goes the photos leaked by the SC/DOJ office were staged and included cover sheets prepared by the government with files strewn about on the floor, and the only reasonable explanation is that this is how the process works? I know this is crazy talk, but why not run with 'no leaked photos of staged documents and imported cover sheets' to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

Jimmy Kimmel, the barometer of a righteousness. 👍

In 2024, not a bad reminder for some of the teachers.

Riiight. As you shared, the numerous legal entanglements “…common in the real estate industry…” were hardly a blip on the radar for Trump. He moved in and about the business world and social settings without much pushback. When he ran for President, things changed dramatically. I did a quick search on litigation, Jeff Bezos, Amazon and others. There’s quite a bit perking there, and or has previously perked. Have you ever looked at the number of cases v the US Government? Yowza. Btw, side note. Over the years I’ve worked with many business owners who have done work with the State of NY. When they speak of difficulty in obtaining final payment, payment generally on jobs large and small, they typically cite large developers and NYS government. One friend expedited a haz mat cleanup on a local waterway to the tune of $500k+—dispatched as an emergency by NYS in NYS land/waters. It was 14+ months for payment—a massive burden to a small business. The reasoning was…they would get to it eventually, sit tight.

This is the answer. I considered Catholic school education for my children, but as I am not an überwealthy Harvey-from-Suits big city lawyer like some here, the financial side of it didn’t work. So, public school, and where appropriate we tried to offer guidance on issues where we felt there was more agenda being taught than balanced education. One of the problems with public education is the monopoly held by public education. I am quite certain that given other options, many families would choose another path. I agree with you on the law. It’s a darn shame you’re going to spend your time in the fiery pits of hell. On the plus side, probably lots of Baphomet statues!

But she wasn't armed, that's been established. I think it's awesome that you give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and hope you extend that in a case like Michael Brown of Jakob Blake. Many liberals and liberal politicians do not. Again, I understand and support the officer making a very difficult decision in a high stress situation. I tend not to second guess officers in those situations, but I try to be consistent in that approach. My original point was that liberals and liberal politicians tend not to extend that courtesy to law enforcement away from the Capitol, as evidenced by things like the Michael Brown case, or JB's advice to shoot 'em in the leg advice. It's your vote, not mine. From my perspective, it sure seems there quite a few instances of authoritarian behavior exhibited by Team Biden and the dems in general over the past 7+ years. While you guys are fretting the slide to authoritarianism, SC investigations launched that lead to nowhere doors are getting kicked in, impeachment is an everyday occurrence, novel litigation invented, and top secret material encouraged to be treated like discarded lottery tickets. Plus, the cannibals...always the cannibals.

No, I don’t think so. Crime, punishment, and shooting of AB are part of the dialogue from that day. That lead to other posters declaring executions were in order for people accused of pandering/picketing, that life in prison was a reasonable sentence, and that the police should have fired on more individuals in the crowd. I responded, including the solution offered by JB, the BLS, because the shooting occurred in Washington, DC. That seems a reasonable venue to discuss it, especially because AB was obviously unarmed.

You’re losing your focus here—we were discussing 1/6 jail sentences, the rule of law and presidential pardons. Now you’re off track, but if you need to get something off your chest, have at it.

You’re describing politicians, of course, but if you believe, you believe. Thanks for clarifying your earlier point. When you indicated she might have been the first of many, and the officer “could have been at risk” from the mob, it wasn’t clear.

Well, to be fair, the indiscriminate firing into crowds is much more in line with your philosophy (and Tibs and others) than mine. I only suggest that because it's what you guys have said. I did notice Trump suggested this was a false story, anonymous sourcing, I see we have people selling books....I view this accusation as false.

I disagree, I think she would be an attractive candidate for many people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/politics/capitol-rioters-split-sentences-appeals/index.html https://rollcall.com/2023/12/13/supreme-court-to-decide-issue-tied-to-hundreds-of-jan-6-cases/ Fair enough. I think reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I have no desire to go down a rabbit hole where we pretend there are no other controversial pardons, it seems an extraordinary waste of time. The rules are what they are, and I understand you would prefer Biden holds the authority to pardon v Trump. I prefer the other.

Are you looking for an argument? If you are, I'm the wrong person to have it with. I said then, and said now, that it was quite likely he felt strongly that his life was in danger and acted accordingly. His job was to go home that day to his family, and in the moment, he made a decision. Certainly, it's obvious she wasn't armed, carried no weapon and wasn't an immediate threat in that regard, but that's the problem with chaos and dangerous situations. As for the mob/crowd factor solely as a reason to fire, some of you keep saying that--but where in America is it acceptable for police officers to fire into crowds of people simply because they're angry or hostile? I'll answer for you--nowhere. My point remains the same--if every law enforcement officer involved in a scenario where his/her life is in jeopardy was given the same benefit of the doubt as that officer, I'd be fine with that. Would you? If so, welcome to the club.