leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

No one is breaking in your house to kill you and steal your Beanie Baby collection, Tibsy. Mark yourself safe and stay strong!

Hmm. So you see this one as unjustified? You never said. AB, you see as justified because she was in the Capitol, and should have left. Not because the officer considered his life to be in jeopardy, not because he thought she had a weapon, not because his gun misfired....just because she existed in that place and time. Under the guidance of--stay with me now--the President of The United States, this shooting was unjustified. She was unarmed, the officer not in any imminent danger from her, and he abandoned the "shoot the leg" plan that JB touts as the answer. On the others that you say should have been shot--after surveillance often shows law enforcement directing and herding people around the Capitol as if in a glorified meet and greet--would you have them herded into a particular room where all the unarmed civilians could be shot en masse? Or, pick the unarmed civilians off in small groups, like at Kent State? And would they be kill shots, or leg shots? Btw--I agree with you that she should not have been in the Capitol, should not have wandered about, should not have climbed through that barrier. We have laws that address that, and none of them involve summary execution of people simply because they had no business being in one place or the other. Of course, that brings us full circle to the most reasoned and reasonable approach--law enforcement identifying people that broke the law, bring them to account under the rules of justice, and if as judged appropriate by the appropriate legal authority, pardoned, sentence commuted, or left to serve out their sentence. Easy breezy.

You feel the Michael Brown shooting was unwarranted? What about the Ashley Babbitt shooting, warranted?

I would say there are many. Michael Brown comes to mind. Jakob Blake another. Besides that, maybe this can give perspective: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4878934/user-clip-vice-president-joe-biden-police-shoot-leg-heart You have to wonder how hard JB went after the officer that shot AB? It’s got all the elements of a BLS (Biden leg shot).

What case what?

I believe I understand the officer's line of thinking when he shot her, and agree that the actions of most individuals shot by law enforcement officers are the root cause of the shooting. The strange (and by strange I mean perfectly predictable) thing was the rush to defend the officer by left-leaning individuals (members of Congress, media, at large) who typically like to micro-analyze the actions of an officer when the shooting occurs elsewhere. In this case, an unarmed individual in range of an armed officer was shot--no leg shot, no warning shot into the ceiling, the officer with a sizable strength and training--and the shot was obviously intended to kill.

She did, and I cannot think of a reason she would ever want to expose herself to that type of life/scrutiny/stress. She literally has the world at her feet— wealthy beyond her wildest dreams, able to travel all over the world and treated like a queen, and her kids mostly out of the spotlight. Still, power can be intoxicating.

When you say "I would argue that there are lines in the sand...", it's important to understand who you are and why your perspective is complete irrelevant to reasonable people. Here's a list of people and crimes you've stated should be executed, many of which include 'pandering, demonstrating and picketing': https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-rioters-who-pleaded-guilty-updated-list-2021-5 As for my perspective on the videos, I'm reasonable enough to understand that speaking directly on the subject doesn't imply I'm defending it, it's simply an acknowledgement of reality. False narratives exist, Fergie, and your line in the sand doesn't change that. "51 Intelligence agents" was a false narrative. Hookers n' urine was a false narrative. "Mitt Romney paid no taxes" was a false narrative. The illegitimate election of 2016 was a false narrative. The stolen election of 2020 was a false narrative. The 'Benghazi was caused by a filmmaker' was a false narrative. Nicholas Sandmann. Kyle Rittenhaus. "...anonymous sources deep within" often create and sustain false narratives. Deceptive editing of news stories. Slippage. The list goes on and on. I'm a centrist with a conservative point of view, happy to agree with any sane person that we would be better as a country if all this sort of thing was eliminated. You're just not that person. Michelle Obama.

You would think after a couple hundred years of misinformation, outrageous comments, slander, duels, lies, and saying horrible things about ones political opponent (often only to partner with them a short time later), that somehow this is an afront to political decency. Change the players, you would hear crickets, part 45.

People are gullible, but then they always have been. So?

Yeah, it’s the WaPo, so you have to wonder if what they publicized is accurate too. Besides, let’s assume there is some selective editing. Does it really matter? Politics is a bare knuckle game, and always has been.