OK so the Mueller report says there was no collusion between any Americans and the Russians trying to mess with the election. This reinforces the similar conclusion from the Senate’s investigation. According to people who are willing to listen to investigators on both sides of the political aisle:
any evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russian agents to interfere with the 2016 election. There was never any evidence of it.
. . . except for the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier, which was paid for by Clinton dollars and was full of literally false information. Including known lies and a prank from 4chan idiots involving prostitutes and urine. It was known by the FBI to be Clinton opposition research FAKE stories, the dossier. Some people in the FBI tried to warn other people in the FBI that it was fake and they should be careful with it. What did they do? they lied to the FISC to get their warrant, and lied again to renew it three times.
So we are interested in the truth, yes? We are willing to spend ten-millions of dollars and employ dozens of people for years to find the truth, yes? We don’t want criminal activity to go unpunished, n’est-ce pas? If that is the case then the question should now properly shift to: why was this done?
Some of us have a pretty good idea of why. But you’ll want me to take off my tinfoil hat before telling you. It will sound like madness today. Let the investigation be concluded and then you will find yourself so shocked at the depth and malignity of this scandal that you will hardly believe it could be real.
So now the press corps will shift to mention of Obstruction of Justice by Don John Trump. I will only remind you of the requirements for a case of obstruction of justice:
- There must have been a crime under investigation
- The investigation/trial process must have been obstructed somehow, or with corrupt intent someone intended to obstruct the process.
Donald Trump did not collluuuuuuuude with muhRussians to mess around in the election. There was never a crime and everyone in the investigation knew that. SO there cannot have been obstruction of justice. Donald Trump actually took no action to impede the investigation (contrariwise, he co-operated (!) as stated by Messrs Mueller and Barr). SO there cannot have been obstruction of justice. The President is the absolute boss of the Department of Justice. He could literally have fired everyone and stopped the investigation. He could have insisted his underlings stop or actually impede the investigation in various ways, and he never did. The absolute worst you find in the Mueller report is that he was frustrated and wanted the investigation to stop but utterly failed to stop the investigation. If words mean anything, then there was no obstruction of Justice by D.J.Trump.
Judge the quality of your chosen source of news accordingly.
…is that, eventually, you run out of other peoples’ money. All along the way to abject poverty being spread across the general populace of a Socialist nation, we have the same thing: Fellow-travellers and Communist/Socialist sympathizers in places that are not (yet!) Socialist keep going on about how great the Socialism is, and how if only we would do what they do our place would be better, like their place is.
And then they refuse to give cancer patients their medicine. I long ago grew tired of hearing advocates for single-payer healthcare saying how well it works where it’s been tried. Next time, I’ll remember to ask them if this is what they mean by “it works.”
It has been a junior-grade flapdoodle in the press for a few days, and it is time for the noise to stop. Exactly one person knows exactly what happened. Five other people know parts of what happened. The parents and local law enforcement and health officials have an idea, as well. You, you pornographer, have no idea and no business knowing what happened.
All you know is, more than half a lifetime agone, a barely-teenaged boy did something unacceptable to five girls. A couple of them were his sisters. The records which were previously unlooked-at have been destroyed in an excellent move by the local Police. One assumes that this family which was maybe locally-famous for having a bunch of children but not-yet-at-the-time internationally famous (and wealthy) could probably not have gotten by with counseling if their boy raped five girls. So somewhere between rape and a kiss on the cheek, you have something bad enough to talk to the Police and a head shrinker about, but not bad enough to incur Sex Offender status or a criminal record to speak of.
And you are freaking out.
Look, this has been dealt with. If any of the other parents thought the dealing-with were inappropriate, surely they would have said so at the time. You are only hearing freak-out about this in the news because YOU didn’t hear about this a couple of decades ago. And you just can’t wait to hear the salacious details of what this handsome young man did to those girls. Well you know what?
You don’t get details.
Its’ none of your business. The local authorities at the time caused Justice to be served, and whatever personal issues you are projecting onto the Duggar family have nothing to do with this time of weakness in one boy’s life. Or, if you insist on talking details:
You are a horrible person and a terrible gossip.
You want these “victims” to dredge up possibly hurtful, traumatic memories, just so you can see what happened to them. This is the worst sort of voyeurism. Shame on you. If your imagination of what might have happened makes you not want to watch their show, don’t watch if it comes back on the air. If it makes you want to not patronize the show’s sponsors, don’t. But don’t you try and insist that people cause themselves mental harm just to satisfy your curiosity.
The stuff that gets people on Registries these days, used to be called “normal boyish behavior” by the way. Nobody thought %behavior% was sex assault, it was just not a great idea. Parents gave lectures and/or licks and it was not to be done any more. Everybody relax for a few minutes and try to think of a time when children were allowed to be children, and the occasional grabassery was treated as childish, rather than criminal. And remember this particular case was dealt with YEARS ago by the people whose job it was to deal with it – and those people ain’t YOU!
I’m 100% in favor of the death penalty . . . when it’s an airtight case. That would increasingly seem to preclude executing people convicted over 10 to 20 years ago when there is any untested DNA or other un-heard evidence.
When there is an open question (in Murder cases) of what the deceased person’s Significant Other was doing that day, after threatening to kill them the way they died if the Significant Other found out the decedent was cheating as this one was . . . yeah, you can’t go without examining all the evidence or hearing the new testimony. And in this case, there is some pretty extensive new evidence!
The Rodney Reed conviction may have been an easy one at the time, but times have changed, and the people involved in prosecuting that case have been shown to be somewhat less than the purest of hearts in public service. I was praying to God that this case would be re-heard, and now it will. Good.
In addition to me, Istapundit also sees the truth. In case anyone decides to act in a few years as if this could not possibly have been foreseen, I present the following quote for future reference:
“First force the savings, then confiscate!“-Glenn Reynolds, Jan 24, 2015
The Democrats, having thoroughly lost the ability to make it happen when they lost control of Congress, have proposed a bill. This bill is going to be described in the national press as being “for” the workers who just can’t seem to get it done on their own. Expect Republican opposition to fold like a house of cards once the wind of “for the people” starts blowing in the press (unless the new Congress is really “different, this time!”).
The bill, if they think they can’t get it passed, is probably an attempt to make the Republicans look like jerks that hate workers of the country. Truly, it is a display of their hand. Not that they’ve been playing very close to the chest recently, but they’re really tipping the cards down here.
Senators Whitehouse and Neal introduce retirement savings bill. The workers aren’t saving for retirement because their mean-ol’ baddy CAPITALIST bosses don’t offer them an expensive plan for tax-preferred savings. That’s it. No, it’s not that the national monetary policy prevents the dollars people earn from being enough to live on. No, it’s not that 20-somethings can’t be bothered to think about retirement savings (due to bad national education policy). It’s because it’s not automatic. Not because people chose to invest somewhere else with their own money. No, we’re going to shrink your pay checks because we know better than you what should be done with your money. You WILL be enrolled in an Individual Retirement Account. IRAs for everyone! (not 529 plans though, those are only for evil people now).
For the time being, enrollment is voluntary. They don’t think the courts are friendly-enough to mandatory wealth confiscation for retirement savings in addition to the mandatory wealth confiscation for retirement savings already provided by the Social Security system. Those who are smart will opt-out of these plans as soon as they are offered. IF you have enough free money every pay check (after bills and debt service) to invest, buy gold or guns/ammo. Durable Things. Not legal constructs. As one wise man has pointed out:
“If you depend on the legal constructs of wicked men to help you save money, don’t be surprised when they take it from you, legally.”
The proposal was already fielded to cause you to convert your 401(k) into investments in USA’s national debt notes instead of whatever you wanted to invest in with your money. The proposal has been fielded to limit how much of your money you will be able to save. Now we have a proposal to take MORE than the 12% of your pay going to social security already, and invest that for your retirement as well.
VFD, IRAs for everyone is a GOOD idea!
No. Voluntary IRAs at everyone’s discretion, invested as they see fit, would be a good idea. Involuntary (or automatic) IRAs for everyone invested in places the government chooses, is a bad idea.
Let me be clear:
The end game is: after your money has been taken for your “individual” IRA, the money will be found to be inequitably distributed. There will still be people who “need help” out there. It’s just not fair that you set money aside, and these people have none. In the interest of the greater good, and for fairness, we will take your individual account and socialize it. Mark me well: unless something drastic happens, your 401(k), IRA, and yes eventually even your Social Security “savings” are all going to be confiscated and spread around to those who are less-fortunate. You may have some of it back when the government says so. If you obey.
…by doing what they were doing, which is not worthy of death, but for which they were killed. In solidarity with the admittedly-often-offensive cartoonists killed at Charlie Weekly:
I found this in Zombietime’s collection of images of mohammed the false prophet of the made-up religion of violence-until-everyone-else-is-dead style “peace” a.k.a. islam.
Me, I like what we did in the barbary states when we were young much more than what we’re doing now with all this pandering political correctness in order to assuage the feelings of people who hate us for not being how they think we should be.*
*yes, it is a run-on sentence. Think about it.
If you are unfortunate-enough to not understand written French, this one is worth a trip to Google Translate.
You are away playing in the sandbox with the other nephews of your Uncle, and your wife is back home being hospitable. She has a single mom living in your house with her, and takes in a guy who was down on his luck as well.
Time finally comes for you to head back to The World, the single mom moves out but the guy stays, and parties in your basement at night. Your wife kicks him out. You make it home alive. One night the guy shows up and demands to see your wife.
You shut the door on him. He busts in. He has a hoodie on, and he goes for his waistband. You shoot him once and he rocks backward. He comes on again and you shoot him again. He falls out your front door and dies, and the Police show up 5 minutes later. Your wife called them in the 3 seconds you were busy preventing yourself from being shot, by shooting the guy first.
Now you’re on trial for murder, because this has happened in Maryland, which has a Duty to Retreat law. You took out a loan ($25k) to get yourself out on bail, and you’re looking at another $25k in lawyer fees.
Don’t you think it would be nice if a few hundred random strangers pitched in to pay your bills? I sure do. Go here and donate. Christians, pray. This guy needs all the help he can get against a State that thinks he should have tried to go cower in fear while the three other people in his house were exposed to the fury of a madman.
Hat tip: Sipsey Street Irregulars
A man is walking with a rifle, refuses to drop it when ordered to do so by police, and is shot Dead Right There. His uncle claims the man ALWAYS listened to music in headphones, and would not have heard a cop tell him drop the rifle.
There are not too many guns on the street. This is not a second amendment debate. This was an AIR rifle. Think “bb gun” and you’re on the right track now. This looks like a fine illustration of a cop that is too ‘shooty’ and a citizen being a straight-up DUMB ASS.
Look, I’m all for policemen showing enough restraint to be sure they have someone’s attention before killing them, and yes there is too much of the “well I sure won’t be the one dying out there today” attitude in modern American police work. But you know what? Anyone who wears two headphones in public is an idiot. Yes, I said it*.
If you are commanded to drop what looks like a weapon by Police, you will not hear it. If you are being followed by a mugger you will not hear it. If you are going to be run over by a car, truck, train, or airplane you will not hear it. If you are being stalked by a pack of wild dogs or a mountain lion you will not hear it. If a tree is falling on you in the woods, nobody still alive after will have heard it either.
Headphones: for privacy on the bus, and for politeness in the dorm room. NOT for wearing out of the house where literally anything can happen that you might have heard coming if you hadn’t been jamming some tunes.
*but only because I’m racist. The dead guy, you see, is black. Criticizing ethnicity-neutral activities of non-white people is racist so ipso facto I clearly must be a racist.
In a twisted bit of logic that may be impenetrable to those of you who didn’t read law when you were getting your education, the Supreme Court of the USA has issued a ruling:
If you want to invoke your right to remain silent, you have to say so.
The guy-who-turned-out-to-be-a-murderer in question was being questioned by police as a murder suspect. They asked him about the murder weapon and he didn’t answer, so they moved on. His SILENCE when he was under no obligation to speak, and had been speaking, was used against him in court. He hadn’t been “properly” mirandized yet, had not been arrested, and did not claim to be silent to prevent incriminating himself. That, plus he was answering the rest of the questions asked by investigators, leads to the following logic from SCOTUS: If you want your silence not to be held as evidence against you, you MUST SAY that you are exercising your right not to speak.
You have the right not to give potentially-incriminating testimony against yourself. If, after this ruling, you ever find yourself speaking to the Police, be certain to tell them right at the beginning: “I understand that I have a right to remain silent. If I refuse to answer your questions, it is an exercise of my right not to say things that may tend to incriminate me.”
From the linked article:
“It has long been settled that the privilege ‘generally is not self-executing’ and that a witness who desires its protection ‘must claim it,” according to the lead opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. “Although ‘no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege’ … a witness does not do so by simply standing mute,” Alito added.